.-<h^ 


ilB^ 


^  <^^  » 


©i  IfUrf 


DIBBLE 


Modern 


.^w^^pr- 


-^■'"•''v  -■'*' 


*  -^    VS    •'. 


A7.  Z2 


LIBRARY  OF   THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


BR  125  .D5  1922 
Dibble,  Charles  Lemuel. 
A  grammar  of  belief 


A  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 


SECOND  EDITION 


A  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 


A  Revaluation  of  the 
Bases  of  Christian  Belief  in  the  Light  of 

Modern  Science  and  Philosophy -~-^ 


JAN  7    19J 
CHARLES  LEMUEL  DIBBI>^^£5!ML^ 

Attorney  at  Law 


BY  AX.    V^> 


MOREHOUSE  PUBLISHING  CO. 
MILWAUKEE,  WIS. 

A.  R.  MOWBRAY  &  CO.  Ltd. 
LONDON 


Copyright,    1922 

BY 

Morehouse  Publishing  Co. 


MODERN  INQUIRIES  IN  RELIGIOUS 
THOUGHT   FOR   COLLEGE   STUDENTS. 

The  members  of  a  group  of  seven  clergy,  ministering  to 
college  students,  associated  with  the  Department  of  Re- 
ligious Education  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in 
forming  policies  for  religious  work  among  students,  have 
jointly  examined  the  manuscript  of  this  book,  and  desire 
to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  clergy  and  teachers  of  col- 
lege and  university  students,  with  the  hope  that  it  will  be 
found  to  meet  a  need. 

Rev.  LeRoy  S.  Burroughs,  Ames,  Iowa. 

Rev.  John  T.  Dallas,  Hanover,  N.  H. 

Rev.  Cyril  Harris,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  Harris  Masterson,  Houston,  Texas. 

Rt.  Rev.  William  G.  McDowell,  Jr.,  Auburn,  Ala. 

Rev.  F.  C.  F,  Randolph,  Columbus,  Ohio. 
Rev.  Ronalds  Taylor,  College  Park,  Md. 


FOREWORD. 

When  a  boy  goes  to  college,  what  happens  to  his  inter- 
est in  religion?  Well,  in  the  first  place,  he  certainly  doesn't 
lose  it.  No  one  who  has  sat  before  an  open  fire  with  a  cir- 
cle of  college  men  and  heard  the  discussion  range  through 
all  things  in  heaven  above  and  in  the  earth  beneath  and  in 
the  waters  under  the  earth,  can  doubt  their  interest  in  re- 
ligion. 

That  is  precisely  why  so  many  of  them  become  agnostic. 
If  they  didn't  care,  they  might  go  on  repeating  with  thought- 
less lips  old  platitudes,  without  ever  wondering  whether  the 
new  learning  was  going  to  fit  them.  It  is  because  they  do 
care  enough  about  religion  to  require  that  it  shall  be  true, 
that  they  turn  from  it  when  it  seems  to  be  discredited. 

Generally,  the  young  man,  and  the  young  woman,  too, 
comes  to  college  with  no  adequate  idea  of  religious  doc- 
trine. He  has  probably  never  concerned  himself  about  it. 
If  he  has  thought  to  inquire,  the  chances  are  that  he  has 
been  answered  after  the  manner  of  half  a  century  ago.  For 
most  people  seem  to  think  that  old  ideas,  like  old  clothing, 
are  good  enough  for  boys.  When  he  gets  to  college  be  learns 
that  the  world  was  not  made  in  seven  days,  and  that  his 
great  grandfather  resembled  an  ape,  and  that  Moses  did 
not  write  the  first  five  books  of  the  Bible.  The  professor 
hasn't  time  to  explain  to  him  that  God  can  work  as  well  in 
a  million  years  as  in  seven  days,  and  that  a  man's  ances- 
tors are  not  nearly  so  important  to  him  as  his  descendants, 
and  that  you  don't  have  to  know  the  author  of  a  book  to 
tell  whether  or  not  it  is  worth  while. 

The  college  man  sees  theology, — the  old  theology, — for- 
ever on  the  defensive  with  science,  and  forever  losing 
ground.  Thinks  he,  if  religion  is  real,  why  remain  on  the 
defensive?    Why  not  meet  science  on  its  own  ground,  and 


viii  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

base  theology,  like  science,  upon  the  facts  of  experience? 
This  is  exactly  what  modern  theologians  have  been  doing; 
only  the  college  man  doesn't  know  where  to  look  for  them. 

Ever  since  my  own  undergraduate  days  I  have  felt  re- 
sentment that  the  Church  did  not  help  me  to  reconstruct 
my  ideas  about  religion  so  as  to  harmonize  them  with  what 
I  was  learning  in  the  class-room.  And  so,  without  any  spe- 
cial fitness  for  the  task,  being  a  practising  lawyer,  I  have  for 
several  years  been  trying  to  assist  the  students  of  a  nearby 
college  to  make  this  reconstruction.  In  that  effort,  the  out- 
line that  follows  has  gradually  developed.  I  have  tried  to 
give  the  student  a  new  orientation,  a  new  way  of  looking  at 
things  both  religious  and  scientific.  I  have  tried  to  take  the 
house  of  his  religious  life  off  its  insecure  foundations  and 
place  it  on  a  new  base,  without  injuring  any  essential  parts 
of  the  building. 

Modern  developments  in  science  and  philosophy  have  pro- 
foundly changed  men's  viewpoint  toward  religion  and  have 
invalidated  many  of  the  arguments  formerly  relied  upon  in 
support  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  Properly  under- 
stood, however,  science  and  philosophy  have  not  overthrown 
Christianity,  but  have  confirmed  it.  Science  and  theology 
appear  to  be  in  confiict  only  because  we  have  misunder- 
stood their  scope.  Neither  is  absolute  in  the  sense  of  being 
unrelated  to  the  human  intellect  and  reason ;  both  are 
evolved  to  classify  and  explain  experience,  the  one  physi- 
cal, the  other  spiritual.  Neither  a  doctrine  of  theology  nor  a 
law  of  science  is  a  fiat  imposed  by  authority  or  inexorable 
necessity ;  but  each  is  a  formula  whereby  w^e  summarize  the 
facts  of  experience.  Both  the  law  and  the  dogma  are  finally 
tested  by  the  results  achieved  through  their  application. 
Hence  every  dogma  must  be  held  to  be  valid  which  fulfills 
the  following  requirements :  if  it  is  congruous  with  the  legiti- 
mate conclusions  of  science;  if  it  epitomizes  and  mediates 
religious  experience;  if  it  evokes  right  action.  A  frank 
revaluation  in  this  light  of  the  bases  of  belief  is  the  pur- 
pose of  this  course. 

Being  neither  a  professional  theologian,  nor  a  profes- 
sional scientist,  I  have  endeavored  to  maintain  an  open  mind 
as  to  the  conclusions  of  both.    There  is,  as  it  seems  to  me. 


FOREWORD  ix 

a  distinct  advantage  in  tliis  viewpoint.  It  ought  to  be 
possible  for  one  not  a  specialist  in  either  science  or  theology, 
but  sympathetic  with  each,  to  effect  a  more  disinterested  ap- 
praisal of  both  and  of  the  relations  between  them.  He  can 
come  at  the  problem  without  any  of  the  preconceptions 
current  in  either  field  and  ought  to  be  able  to  get  a  better 
perspective.  At  any  rate,  such  a  viewpoint  ought  to  ap- 
proach more  closely  to  that  of  the  "ultimate  consumer,*'  to 
whom  these  discussions  are  addressed. 

This  position,  on  the  other  hand,  lays  one  under  the 
obligation  of  humility  as  to  the  particular  material  dealt 
with.  I  cherish  no  illusions  of  infallibility.  I  can  hardly 
hope  to  have  avoided  error  in  statements  either  scientific  or 
theological.  I  trust,  however,  that  such  errors  will  not 
seriously  impair  the  usefulness  of  this  outline.  What  I  have 
endeavored  to  provide  is  not  matter,  but  method,  and  of  the 
validity  of  that  method,  as  I  have  outlined  it  above,  I  am 
profoundly  convinced.  It  ought  to  be  possible,  on  the  other 
hand,  for  the  leader  and  members  of  the  group  to  make 
the  corrections  or  additions  which  appear  to  them  to  be  de- 
manded ;  while  still  using  this  method  of  presentation  as 
a  point  of  departure  from  which  to  formulate  their  own 
view.  Indeed  such  conflict  in  ideas  between  text  and  dis- 
cussion group  will  be  found  to  stimulate  interest  and  will 
result  in  independent  and  worth-while  conclusions. 

While  these  discussions  were  originally  worked  out  for 
college  students,  I  have  found  that  the  demand  for  some 
systematic  presentation  of  the  relation  between  science  and 
religion  is  equally  insistent  on  the  part  of  nearly  all  men  and 
women  today, — certainly  of  all  those  who  look  below  the 
surface.    To  all  such  inquirers  this  book  is  dedicated. 

Although  I  assume  responsibility  for  whatever  appears 
in  this  outline,  I  wish  to  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to 
the  Rev.  Paul  Micou  of  the  Episcopal  Department  of  Reli- 
gious Education  and  to  the  "Student  Inquirers,"  a  group 
of  student  pastors  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  for  their  ad- 
vice in  its  preparation  and  for  making  possible  its  publi- 
cation ;  to  the  Very  Rev.  B.  F.  P.  Ivins,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Na- 
shotah  House,  for  the  inspiration  to  undertake  this  work; 
and  to  the  Rev.  Frank  Gavin,  Th.D.,  of  Nashotah  House, 


X  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

to  the  Rev.  Stanley  M.  Cleveland  of  Madison,  Wis.,  and  to 
the  Rev.  Burton  S.  Easton,  D.D.,  of  the  General  Theological 
Seminary,  for  their  exceedingly  valuable  suggestions. 
Kalamazoo,  Michigan,  1922. 


NOTE  TO  THE   SECOND  EDITION 

Some  minor  changes  have  been  made  in  the  text  of  this 
edition  and  additional  suggestions  for  collateral  reading 
have  been  included  in  the  notes. 

It  is  suggested  that  one  reading  the  book  individually, 
and  not  as  a  basis  for  group  discussion,  will  do  well  to  adopt 
the  Chinese  method  of  beginning  at  the  back,  and  to  read 
first  the  essays  in  Part  II.  These  will  be  found  to  present 
more  fully  the  underlying  theory  and  method  of  approach 
employed  in  the  discussions  and  will  lay  a  foundation  for 
them. 

Kalamazoo,  Michigan,  1923. 


PART  I. 

DISCUSSION  TOPICS. 

A.— WHY  BELIEVE?  (The  Philosophy  of  The- 
ism.) 

I.  Quo  Vadis?  Problem:  Can  Society  pros- 
per without  vital  religious  belief?  Whither  is  soci- 
ety headed  ?  The  importance  of  vital  religious  belief 
to  society  and  to  the  individual.  Present  day  diffi- 
culties of  belief.  Essentials  of  vital  religious  belief ; 
it  must  not  contradict  science  and  common  sense ;  it 
must  epitomize  religious  experience;  it  must  evoke 
right  action.    Can  belief  again  be  made  vital? 

II.  The  Warfare  of  Science  With  Theology. 
Problem:  Has  science  banished  religion,  and  if 
not,  how  may  theology  be  reconstructed?  The  story 
of  the  losing  fight  of  a  theology  based  on 
mistaken  premises.  The  gradual  contraction  of  the 
notion  of  special  interference  of  Providence  in  the 
fields  of  cosmogony,  meteorology,  anthropology,  med- 
icine, history,  biology,  and  psychology.  Causes  of 
agreement  between  Aristotelian  natural  philosophy 
and  scholastic  theology.  Are  causes  of  disagreement 
unavoidable,  or  may  science  and  theology  again  be 
harmonized  ? 

III.  The  Grammar  of  Science.  Problem: 
Are  matter  and  material  laws  the  only  ob- 
jective reality?  Relativity  and  subjectivity  of  the 
basic  concepts  of  science.    The  mind  a  telephone  ex- 


2  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

change.     Percepts,    concepts,   space,   time,    motion, 
matter,  cause  and  effect,  natural  law. 

IV.  The  Grammar  of  Theology.  Problem: 
How    far    may    we    trust    our    intuitions?     The 

inside  of  the  telephone  exchange.  Mental  tendencies 
or  "senses".  The  sense  for  rationality,  the  basis  of 
science.  The  sense  for  right  and  for  reverence,  the 
basis  of  religion.  The  religious  evaluation  of  the 
universe.     Specific  religious  experience.     Dogma. 

V.  The  Will  to  Believe.  Problem:  When 
belief  and  disbelief  are  both  j^ossible,  which  should 
we  choose?  The  loom  of  thought.  Understanding 
and  hypothesis.  Practical  hypotheses  and  our  at- 
titude toward  them ;  belief,  doubt,  and  denial.  The 
legitimacy  of  belief.     Credulity. 

VI.  The  Idea  op  God.  Problem :  Has  modern 
science  made  it  impossible  to  believe  in  a 
personal  (lod?  Practical  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion. History  of  the  idea  of  God.  May  we  believe 
in  a  personal  God ;  do  science  or  philosophy  deny 
God?  tihould  we  believe  in  a  personal  God;  affirma- 
tive arguments.  The  relation  of  God  to  the  ma- 
terial universe  and  to  man. 

VII.  The  Will.  Problem :  Is  the  human  will 
really  free,  or  is  our  conduct  pre-determiued?  Ob- 
jections to  freedom  of  the  will,  religious,  philosoph- 
ical, and  scientific.  Are  these  objections  unanswer- 
able? Does  science  negative  moral  freedom?  The 
teaching  of  philosophy  and  ethics.  May  the  will  be 
conditioned  and  yet  be  free? 

VIII.  Life  Eternal.  Problem :  Has  modern 
science  made  this  belief  untenable?  If  tenable, 
can  it  be  said  to  be  more  than  a  mere  possibility? 
History  of  the  idea  of  immortality.  May  we  believe 
It;  does  science  or  philosophy  deny  it?  Should  we 
believe  it;  affirmative  arguments. 


DISCUSSION  TOPICS  3 

B.  WHAT  THINK  YE  OF  CHRIST?  (Chris- 
tian Dogma.) 

IX.  The  Creating  God.  Problem:  Has'  the 
theory  of  evolution  substituted  Natural  Force  for 
God  as  the  creator  of  the  material  universe  and  of 
man?  Theory  of  special  creation.  Theory  of  evolu- 
tion. The  philosophy  and  theology  of  evolution. 
Miracles. 

X.  The  Revealing  God.  Problem:  If  the 
Bible  is  not  infallible,  how  can  it  be  said  to  be  in- 
spired by  God,  >since  God  does  not  err?  Fallibility 
of  the  Bible.  History  of  the  idea  of  Biblical  infal- 
libility. What  is  inspiration?  The  inspiration  of 
the  Bible. 

XI.  The  Nicbnb  Idea  of  God.  Problem:  Is 
the  dogma  of  the  Trinity  intelligible,  and,  if  so,  has 
it  any  practical  bearing?  Definition.  History  of 
the  development  of  the  dogma.  The  meaning  of  "per- 
son". The  dogma  in  terms  of  modern  thought.  The 
concepts  of  transcendence,  immanence,  and  human- 
ity ;  their  necessity  to  an  adequate  idea  of  God. 

XII.  Jesus  the  Man.  Problem:  Does  his- 
torical criticism  leave  us  any  assurance  of  the  facts 
of  Jesus'  life;  and,  if  so,  what  do  we  gather  of  it? 
Present  conclusions  as  to  the  records.  Brief  survey 
of  his  life,  death,  and  resurrection.  His  conception 
of  his  messiahship  and  the  conception  of  his  disciples. 

XIII.  What  Think  Ye  op  Christ?  Problem: 
If  Jesus  was  man,  how  can  he  be  said  to  be 
divine  in  any  other  sense  than  men  in  general?  How 
is  the  Divine  Life  to  be  accounted  for?  The  inter- 
pretation of  the  primitive  Church  and  its  develop- 
ment.   A  modern  restatement. 

XIV.  The  Judging  God.  Problem:  If  man  is 
the  creature  of  his  heredity  and  environment,  why 


4  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

should  God  hold  him  to  account;  does  not  mod- 
ern science  conflict  with  the  idea  of  hell?  Moral  re- 
sponsibility. Conscience.  What  is  crime,  and  what 
steps  do  we  take  to  protect  ourselves  from  it?  What 
is  sin,  in  its  objective  and  subjective  aspects,  and 
what  steps  does  God  take  to  eradicate  it?  Heaven 
and  Hell. 

XV.  The  Atoning  God.  Problem:  If  God  is 
both  loving  and  omnipotent,  why  does  he  permit 
sin,  pain,  and  sorrow?  The  answers  of  philosojjhy, 
— utilitarian,  epicurean,  stoic,  skeptic,  atheist, 
pessimist.  The  answer  of  "Christian  Science".  The 
answer  of  Christianity, — eternal  life  and  atonement. 
The  meaning  of  atonement. 

XVI.  The  Loving  God.  Problem:  Is  inter- 
communion possible  between  God  and  man ;  and  how 
can  God  answer  prayer  without  violating  natural 
laws?  The  subconscious.  Conversion.  Prayer,  its 
nature  and  effect.  Christian  mysticism.  Spiritual 
healing,  its  possibilities  and  limitations. 

XVII.  The  Life  Worth  While  (Christian 
Ethics).  Problem:  If  I  deal  justly  and  prac- 
tice charity,  have  I  not  fulfilled  my  whole  duty? 
The  eternal  question,  "What  is  the  chief  end  of 
man?"  The  answer  of  Christianity.  The  duties  of 
life, — toward  God,  toward  my  neighbor,  toward  my- 
self. Results  of  over-emphasis  of  either  sort  of  duty, 
as  shown  by  history.    The  reward  of  life. 

XVIII.  The  Idea  of  a  Church.  Problem: 
Why  should  I  join  the  Church?  If  I  live  a 
Christian  life,  is  that  not  all  that  is  required?  The 
Catholic  and  Protestant  ideas  of  the  Church.  The 
history  of  corporate  religion.  Value  of  the  organic 
idea.  The  Church  as  the  Beloved  Community.  The 
Church  as  the  Body  of  Christ.  Limitations  on  the 
authority  of  the  Church. 


DISCUSSION  TOPICS  5 

XIX.  The  Idea  of  a  Sacrament.  Problem: 
If  God  is  everywhere,  of  what  advantage  is  a 
sacrament?  The  Catholic  and  Protestant  ideas  of 
a  sacrament.  The  history  of  sacrificial  and  sacra- 
mental religion.  The  value  of  public  worship.  The 
value  of  sacraments.    Baptism.    Eucharist. 

XX.  The  Idea  of  a  Ministry.  Problem:  Is 
it  needful,  or  right,  that  anyone  should  represent 
God  to  me,  or  me  to  God?  The  history  of  priest- 
hood. Value  of  a  priesthood.  Limitations.  Eoman 
theory.    The  Apostolic  Succession. 

XXI.  The  Development  of  Doctrine.  Prob- 
lem: Is  not  Christianity  largely  a  syncretism  of 
other  religions  and  a  corruption  of  the  teaching  of 
the  Master ;  and  how  are  we  to  get  at  the  real  essence 
of  Christianity?  Influences  from  without.  Devel- 
opment within.  The  deposit  theory.  The  theory  of 
development.  How  may  we  distinguish  between 
true  development  and  corruption?  The  value  of 
authority. 

XXII.  Present  Day  Problems.  What  has  the 
Church  to  contribute  in  the  social  crisis,  and 
how  may  she  best  do  it?  What  should  be  her  re- 
lation to  politics,  to  economic  and  social  questions, 
and  to  philanthropy?  The  problem  of  the  reunion 
of  Christendom ;  is  it  advisable,  is  it  possible,  would 
it  be  permanent?  The  method  and  terms  of  reunion, 
various  proposals.  What  will  the  Church  of  the  fu- 
ture be?  What  element  might  each  of  the  present 
divisions  of  Christendom  contribute? 


J  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

PART  II. 

Essay      I.  The  Relevancy  of  Religion. 

Essay     II.  Dogma. 

Essay  III.  The  Grammar  of  Theology. 

Essay    IV.  The  Nicene  Idea  of  God. 

Essay     V.  Nature  and  Religion. 

PART  III. 

Suggestions  to  the  Leader  of  the  Discussions. 


PART  I 


A.— WHY  BELIEVE? 
The  Philosophy  of  Theism. 

DISCUSSION  I. 

QUO  VADIS? 

1.  Whither  is  society  tending?  The  World  War 
and  possibility  of  recurrence.  Increase  of  crime. 
Social  unrest.     Economic  and  political  instability. 

2.  Whither  is  religion  tending?  Churches  de- 
serted. Shortage  of  clergy.  Loss  of  influence.  Loss 
of  vital  religious  belief. 

Problem:     Can  society  prosper  without  vital  re- 
ligious belief? 

3.  What  is  religion? 

a.  Definition.  Keligion  is  belief  in,  reverence 
towards,  and  effort  to  establish  right  rela- 
tions with,  a  Supernatural  Power  or  Powers. 

b.  Three  elements:  belief,  intellectual;  rever- 
ence, emotional;  and  effort  to  establish  re- 
lations, practical. 

c.  Necessity  of  all  three  elements :  they  corres- 
spond  to  the  three  departments  of  human  ac- 
tivity, lacking  which  any  religion  would  be 
one-sided.  The  last  two  are  admittedly  es- 
sential, but  it  is  the  fashion  to  belittle  the 
function  of  belief.  This  is  a  fallacy.  Belief 
is  the  backbone  of  religion. 


10  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

4.  Function  of  religious  belief. 

a.  In  relation  to  conduct.  Belief  in  divine  aid 
gives  us  self-confidence  and  courage.  Be- 
lief in  immortality  makes  us  plan  for  etern- 
ity, instead  of  for  time.  If  assured  of  only 
five  years  of  life  we  would  plan  differently 
than  if  assured  of  twenty.  If  assured  of  im- 
mortality we  plan  for  continuous  develop- 
ment here  and  hereafter,  gain  a  proper  per- 
spective, and  lose  selfish  motives. 

b.  In  relation  to  happiness.  Our  anxieties  are 
quieted  and  our  life  made  normal.  Man  is 
incurably  religious  and  is  restless  till  he  finds 
rest  in  God.  Belief  in  a  God  of  love,  wisdom, 
and  power  makes  life  worth  while.  The 
saintly  men  whom  we  know  are  the  happy 
men. 

c.  In  relation  to  society.  Society  is  composed 
of  individuals;  and  their  right  conduct  and 
happiness,  their  proper  adjustment  and  nor- 
mal functioning,  constitutes  social  well-being. 
The  social  necessity  of  religion  is  proved  by 
its  universal  acceptance.  "If  there  were  no 
God,  it  would  be  necessary  to  invent  one," 
says  Voltaire.  Hence  it  is  that  religion  has 
always  normally  been  regarded  as  an  affair 
of  the  whole  community  (Disc.  XVIII).  Its 
most  primitive  manifestation  was  tribal  rites 
and  its  highest  development  in  civilized 
communities  takes  the  form  of  collective 
worship,  organization  and  service. 

5.  The  reason  why  belief  is  not  seen  to  have  a  prac- 
tical bearing  is  because  we  have  not  tried  it.  We  do 
not  really  believe,  except  occasionally.  In  the  old 
days,  when  belief  was  vivid,  it  was  a  mighty  force. 
Can  it  be  made  vivid  again?     Can  it  be  presented 


QUO   VADISf  11 

SO  that  men  shall  really  believe  all  the  time?  That 
attempt  is  the  purpose  of  this  course.  ( See  the  essay 
entitled  The  Relevancy  of  Religion  in  Part  II.) 

6.  Present  day  hindrances  to  belief. 

a.  Advancement  of  science,  so  as  to  seem  incon- 
sistent with  religion. 

b.  Great  commercial  and  material  development 
has  created  a  materialistic  atmosphere. 

c.  Emphasis  by  some  theologians  on  antiquated 
methods  of  presentation.  It  is  no  longer  pos- 
sible to  foreclose  discussion  in  this,  or  any 
other  field,  by  an  appeal  to  authority. 

7.  Purpose  of  the  course. 

a.  To  define  the  scope  of  science  as  not  incon- 
sistent with  religion. 

b.  To  define  the  scope  of  theology  as  not  incon- 
sistent with  science. 

c.  To  restate  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the- 
ology, deriving  them  from  the  facts  of  relig- 
ious experience,  as  the  laws  of  science  are 
derived  from  the  facts  of  material  experience. 

d.  The  motto  of  the  course: 

^^A  doctrine  is  not  a  fiat  hut  a  formula/^ 
Fiat  money  is  printed  paper  which  the  gov- 
ernment tells  me  is  worth  a  dollar,  or  a  ruble. 
If  my  patriotism,  or  fear,  is  strong  enough, 
I  will  accept  it  at  this  value.  But,  when  I 
try  to  pass  it  on  to  you  and  to  say  that  it  is 
worth  so  much,  because  I,  or  the  government, 
say  it  is,  I  will  have  considerable  difficulty. 
The  analogy  to  fiat  religious  doctrine  is  ob- 
vious. Valid  doctrines,  however,  are  worth 
one  hundred  cents  on  the  dollar,  because 
based  on  religious  experience. 


12  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

e.  Every  doctrine  must  fulfill  these  require- 
ments (see  essay,  The  Grammar  of  Theology, 
infra,  especially  pp.  161-162)  : 

(1)  It  must  be  congruent  with  the  legitimate 
conclusions  of  science. 

(2)  It  must  epitomize  and  mediate  religious 
experience. 

(3)  It  must  evoke  right  action. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  course  to  examine 
the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity 
and  determine  whether  they  meet  this  crite- 
rion.   "By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 


DISCUSSION   11. 

WARFARE  OF  SCIENCE  WITH  THEOLOGY; 
SCIENCE  TRIUMPHANT. 

(In  connection  with  this  Discussion,  see  Discus- 
sions IX  and  X.) 

1.  History  of  the  conflict  and  gradual  retreat  of 
theology  before  science  in  the  various  fields. 

a.  Cosmogony — Geocentric  vs.  Heliocentric. 

b.  Medicine — Incantations  and  Charms  vs.  Anti- 
toxins. 

c.  Meteorology — The  God  of  the  Storm  vs.  Sun 
Spots. 

d.  Anthropology — The  Fall  of  Man  vs.  The  Rise 
of  Man. 

e.  Ethnology — Genesis  vs.  The  Monuments. 

f.  Philology — The  Tower  of  Babel  vs.  Grimm^s 
Law. 

g.  History — Bibliolatry  vs.  Historical  Criticism, 
h.  Biology — Special  Creation  vs.  Evolution. 

i.  Psychology — The  Soul  vs.  Consciousness. 

Problem:     Has  science  banished  religion;  and,  if 
not,  how  may  theology  be  reconstructed? 

2.  The  causes  of  early  agreement  between  natural 
philosophy  and  theology. 

a.  The  theology  of  the  Bible  and  contempora- 
neous natural  philosophy  were  both  built  on 

13 


14  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

the  facts  of  nature,  as  then  observed  and  ex- 
plained. 

b.  Both  natural  philosophy  and  theology  used 
the  a  priori  method.  Significance  of  name, 
natural  philosophy. 

c.  Both  relied  implicitly  upon  authority:  the- 
ology on  the  sacred  books;  natural  philoso- 
phy on  the  statements  of  recognized  author- 
ities— e.  g.  Aristotle  (physics),  Galen  (med- 
icine). Roger  Bacon  was  persecuted,  as  well 
as  John  Hus. 

d.  Neither  employed  the  method  of  experiment. 
Both  merely  collected  and  catalogued  facts, 
without  attempting  to  investigate  causal  re- 
lations. 

3.  Causes  of  later  disagreement. 

a.  Science  was  forced  by  the  growing  dis- 
crepancy between  its  theories  and  the  ob- 
served facts  to  break  with  authority.  It  first 
tolerated,  then  espoused,  the  method  of  ob- 
servation and  experiment. 

b.  Theology  retained  the  old  method,  since  the 
power  of  authority  was  stronger  in  its  field 
and  the  facts  upon  which  it  is  based  were  less 
susceptible  to  experiment.  In  time  it  quite 
forgot  that  its  doctrines  were  derived  from, 
or  have  any  basis  in,  the  facts  of  religious 
experience,  and  regarded  them  as  established 
by  arbitrary  divine  fiat. 

4.  Present  position  of  science. 

a.  Method.  Induction  from  observation  and 
experiment  to  a  general  formula  or  law.  A 
priori  method  used  only  for  working  hypoth- 
esis. 


WARFARE    OF    SCIENCE    WITH    THEOLOGY        15 

b.  Underlying  theory.  Phenomenal  results  have 
phenomenal  causes  which  are  discoverable. 
Phenomena  are  capable  of  rationalization, 
i.  e.  of  statement  in  scientific  laws. 

c.  Conclusions.  As  a  result  of  the  application 
of  the  theory  of  cause  and  effect  to  the  ob- 
served facts,  through  the  method  of  experi- 
ment, science  has  reached  the  conclusion  that, 
in  the  whole  range  of  phenomena,  change  oc- 
curs by  evolution  and  not  by  special  creation, 
and  that  the  whole  universe  is  continually 
developing. 

5.  Present  position  of  theology. 

Doctrines,  like  scientific  laws,  have  grown  up  by 
working  from  observation  and  experiment  to  a  gen- 
eral formula  or  dogma.  (See  Part  II,  Dogma.) 
The  individual  in  determining  for  himself  what  he 
shall  believe  should  use  the  same  method  as  the 
scientist.  He  should  use  the  dogma  as  a  work- 
ing hypothesis.  He  should  then  test  this  hypothesis 
by  noting  what  has  been  its  effect  upon  those  who 
have  held  it  throughout  the  history  of  Christianity 
and  among  his  acquaintances  (method  of  observa- 
tion), and  he  should  then  try  it  out  himself,  assume 
that  it  is  true  and  act  upon  it  (method  of  experi- 
ment). It  was  by  these  methods  that  Romanes  con- 
verted himself  from  agnosticism.  (See  Part  II,  The 
Relevancy  of  Religion.) 

6.  Harmony  is  being  restored  between  science  and 
theology. 

a.  Science  is  recognizing  its  limitations,  and  is 
ceasing  to  philosophize.  (See  Essay  by 
Heniy  Fairfield  Osborn,  Nature  and  Relig- 
ion, in  Part  11.) 


16  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

b.  Theology  is  recognizing  its  limitations,  and 
is  defining  its  new  viewpoint  so  as  not  to  in- 
vade the  field  of  science.  Some  of  the  books 
setting  forth  this  new  viewpoint  will  be  found 
in  Part  III. 

c.  Theology  is  employing  in  its  own  field  the 
same  underlying  theory  and  method  as  sci- 
ence.   (See  §4.) 

7.  Conclusion. 
Theologians  have  fought  for  five  hundred  years 
to  defend  the  theory  of  miraculous  causation  and 
the  a  priori  method,  as  against  the  theory  of  phe- 
nomenal causation  and  the  method  of  experiment, 
and  have  been  defeated  in  one  field  after  another. 
At  every  stronghold  which  they  have  defended  they 
have  asserted  that,  if  this  were  forced,  religion 
would  be  discredited.  Small  wonder  if  people  are 
now  beginning  to  take  them  at  their  word.  It  is  a 
tribute  to  the  power  and  ultimate  validity  of  religion 
that  it  is  still  alive,  when  its  doctors  have  been  giv- 
ing it  up  for  five  hundred  years.  The  leaders  of  the- 
ology have  abandoned  outworn  methods  and  recog- 
nize that  a  doctrine  is  not  a  fiat  but  a  formula,  and 
they  are  restating  theological  doctrines,  deriving 
them  from  the  observed  facts  of  spiritual  experience. 
When  this  readjustment  shall  have  been  effected,  it 
is  not  too  much  to  hope  that  religious  beliefs  will 
again  obtain  universal  assent. 


DISCUSSION   III. 

THE  GRAMMAR  OF  SCIENCE. 

1.  All  we  know  of  the  outside  world  is  the  sense 
impressions  which  come  to  us.  Each  of  us  is  like 
a  telephone  operator,  chained  to  her  switch-board 
and  unable  to  see  beyond  her  office,  knowing  only 
what  the  persons  using  the  telephone  tell  her. 

2.  We  assume  that  the  sense  impressions  are 
caused  by  something  and  that  what  they  tell  us  is 
valid,  as  far  as  it  goes.  But  we  know  that  our  senses 
are  incomplete.  For  example :  there  are  light  waves 
and  sound  waves  beyond  those  which  affect  our  eye 
and  ear ;  we  cannot  perceive  the  waves  used  in  wire- 
less telegraphy;  and  we  know  that  the  dog's  sense 
of  smell  is  more  acute  than  ours. 

3.  A  sense  impression  is  called  a  Percept. 

4.  As  soon  as  we  perceive  any  object  we  at  once 
add  to  our  sense  impression  various  other  sense  im- 
pressions stored  up  in  our  memory  about  similar 
objects,  and  from  these  immediate  and  stored-up 
sense  impressions  we  form  a  mental  image.  This 
mental  image  is  a  Concept.  We  think  in  concepts 
and  we  remember  concepts.  We  do  not  think  or  re- 
member percepts  as  such. 

5.  A  Phenomenon  is  a  succession  of  mental 
images  or  concepts. 

6.  The  Real  universe  is  the  sum  total  of  the  sense 
impressions,  or  percepts,  which  we  have,  or  which  we 
might  have. 


IS  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

7.  The  Conceptual  universe  is  the  sum  total 
of  the  mental  images  or  concepts,  which  we  have,  or 
might  have, — in  other  words,  the  sum  total  of  phe- 
nomena. 

8.  Our  real  universe  is  continuous  and  is  always 
moving,  doing  something.  Our  conceptual  universe 
is  discontinuous  and  static,  always  standing  still. 
That  is,  each  concept  is  considered  by  itself  as  stand- 
ing still  and  the  universe  as  a  whole  is  merely  the 
aggregate  of  these  isolated  concepts.  It  is  because 
of  these  interstices  between  concepts,  so  to  speak, 
that  our  conceptual  universe  does  not  exactly  cor- 
respond to  the  real  universe.  The  growth  of  knowl- 
edge of  phenomena  tends  constantly  to  fill  in  these 
interstices  and  hence  our  conceptual  universe  con- 
stantly approaches  more  closely  to  reality.  Owing, 
however,  to  our  mental  makeup,  the  two  can  never 
exactly  correspond. 

9.  Scientists  have  confessed  themselves  to  be 
wholly  unable  satisfactorily  to  define  matter  as 
an  objective  entity.  For  example,  Clerk  Maxwell,  the 
physicist,  writes  {Matter  and  Motion)  "We  are  ac- 
quainted with  matter  only  as  that  which  may  have 
energy  communicated  to  it  from  other  matter  and 
which  may  in  its  turn  communicate  energy  to  other 
matter.  Energy,  on  the  other  hand,  we  know  only  as 
that  which  in  all  natural  phenomena  is  continually 
passing  from  one  portion  of  matter  to  another."  This 
reminds  us  of  the  story  as  to  the  definitions  given  by 
a  Christian  Scientist: — ''What  is  mind?  No  matter. 
What  is  matter?  Never  mind."  The  most  satisfac- 
tory definition  is  that  of  John  Stuart  Mill  {Logic , 
Bk.  I,  chap.  3.)  :  ^'MATTER  is  the  permanent  possi- 
bility of  sensation/^  This  definition,  it  will  be  per- 
ceived, is  wholly  subjective, — entirely  an  affair  of 
perception. 


THE    GRAMMAR    OF    SCIENCE  19 

10.  Space  is  our  mode  of  knowing  co-existing 
concepts  apart.  Pearson,  Grammar  of  Science,  p. 
1G3. 

11.  Time  is  our  mode  of  knowing  successive  con- 
cepts apart.    Pearson,  p.  181. 

12.  Motion  is  a  combination  of  the  two  modes. 
It  is  a  change  in  the  relative  position  of  two  con- 
cepts with  change  of  time.  Pearson,  p.  182.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  absolute  motion ;  the  motion  of 
one  thing  is  always  relative  to  some  other  thing. 

13.  Force  is  a  measure  of  how  one  portion  of 
matter  moves  relatively  to  another  portion,  this 
measure  depending  partly  on  the  individual  char- 
acter of  the  first  (its  mass)  and  partly  on  the  at- 
tention it  is  paying  to  the  presence  of  the  second 
portion  (its  acceleration  due  to  the  second  portion). 
Pearson,  p.  304.  More  briefly,  force  is  change  in 
the  momentum  of  a  body  incident  to  the  presence  of 
another  body.    Example,  the  force  of  gravitation. 

14.  Energy  is  the  capacity  for  doing  work. 

1.5.  Thus  we  see  that  all  the  fundamental  ideas  of 
science  are  purely  subjective  and  relative. 

16.  Cause  and  Effect.  When  we  have  two 
or  more  concepts  in  succession,  we  call  the  former 
concept  the  cause  and  the  latter  the  effect.  The 
cause  does  not  necessitate  the  effect;  it  merely  pre- 
cedes it.  For  example ;  as  a  ball  is  thrown,  its  posi- 
tion at  the  first  instant  of  its  course  does  not  neces- 
sitate its  position  at  the  second  instant.  Now,  if 
the  ball  hits  a  window,  the  position  of  the  ball  at  the 
window  does  not  necessitate  that  the  glass  of  the 
window  should  fly  in  pieces,  any  more  than  the  posi- 
tion of  the  ball  at  the  first  instant  necessitated  its 
position  at  the  second  instant.  The  presence  of  the 
ball  is  the  cause  of  the  breaking  of  the  window,  but 
does  not  necessitate  it.    ''Were  our  perceptive  organs 


20  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

sufficiently  powerful,  science  conceives  that  we 
should  see,  before  the  impact,  particles  of  window 
and  particles  of  ball  moving  in  a  certain  manner  and, 
after  the  impact,  the  same  particles  moving  in  a  very 
different  manner.  We  might  carefully  describe  these 
motions;  but  we  should  be  unable  to  say  why  one 
stage  would  follow  another.  Thus,  scientifically,  the 
idea  of  necessity  in  the  stages  of  the  sequence,  or  the 
idea  of  enforcement,  would  disappear."  Pearson, 
p.  118. 

There  is,  we  may  be  sure,  a  real  cause  behind  phe- 
nomena, as  it  were  a  vertical  causation,  operative 
ceaselessly.  But  this  causation  is  a  matter  for  meta- 
physics. Science  concerns  itself  only  with  hori- 
zontal causation,  which  is  simply  sequence. 

The  difference  may  be  illustrated  in  this  way: 
Suppose  two  persons  to  be  playing  checkers,  and  the 
observer  to  be  a  fly  that  has  lighted  on  the  board. 
Suppose,  now,  that  to  this  fly  the  checkers  were  vis- 
ible, but  the  players  invisible.  The  fly  would  ob- 
serve that,  whenever  a  white  checker  moved  into  a 
square  in  front  of  a  black  checker,  leaving  a  vacant 
square  behind  it,  the  black  checker  would  jump  over 
the  white  checker  and  the  white  checker  would  dis- 
appear from  the  board.  The  fly,  observing  that  this 
sequence  was  invariable,  would  say  that  the  move- 
ment of  the  white  checker  in  front  of  the  black 
checker  caused  the  black  checker  to  jump  over  it. 
The  fly  would  be  quite  right.  But  he  would  not  have 
explained  why  the  black  checker  jumped.  The  mo- 
tion of  the  checkers  corresponds  to  scientific,  or 
what  I  have  called  horizontal,  causation ;  while  the 
lifting  of  the  checker  by  the  invisible  hand  corre- 
sponds to  metaphysical,  or  what  I  have  called  verti- 
cal, causation. 


THE    GRAMMAR    OF    SCIENCE  21 

17.  A  Natural  Law  is  a  Formula  which  Des- 
cribes the  way  in  which  one  concept  follows  an- 
other. For  example ;  the  law  of  gravitation  describes 
how  one  concept  called  the  earth  moves  with 
relation  to  another  concept  called  the  sun.  The  law 
of  gravitation  does  not  make  the  earth  move  around 
the  sun ;  it  does  not  even  tell  us  what  does  make  the 
earth  move  in  that  way.  It  simply  describes  the  way 
in  which  the  earth  moves.  Natural  law  answers  the 
question,  How?  not  the  question,  Why? 

18.  It  is  the  purpose  of  science  to  describe  these 
phenomena  or  successions  of  concepts  which  occur 
to  our  minds,  and  to  lay  down  formulas  which  will 
describe  such  succession.  Science  does  not  concern 
itself  with  the  actual  constitution  of  the  universe, 
or  even  with  our  immediate  sense  impressions;  but 
only  with  the  mental  images  or  concepts  which  we 
form.  Therefore,  when  we  say  that  science  discovers 
natural  laws,  all  we  mean  is  that  science  formulates 
statements,  or  formulas,  which  describe  the  way  in 
which  our  concepts  follow  one  another. 

19.  We  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  in  the  main 
our  senses  are  telling  us  the  truth,  so  far  as  they  go. 
We  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  there  is  a  Some- 
thing {Ding  an  sicJi,  noumenon)  out  there,  behind 
the  procession  of  phenomena,  which  is  ceaselessly 
moving  and  changing;  and  that  for  this  motion  and 
change  there  is  a  Somewhy  (energy,  power,  elan). 
But  this  What  and  this  Why  are  purely  matter 
of  metaphysics.  Scientists  are  learning  that  the  field 
of  science  lies  only  in  the  investigation  of  sequence 
of  phenomena.  Science  answers  the  question.  How? 
not  the  question.  Why? 


DISCUSSION  IV. 

THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY. 

(See  essay  on  this  subject  in  Part  II.) 

1.  So  far  we  have  studied  the  way  in  which  mes- 
sages come  to  the  telephone  operator.  But  we  have 
neglected  to  inquire  what  goes  on  inside  the  ex- 
change. 

2.  In  the  first  place  we  know  that  the  girl  does  not 
simply  connect  up  subscribers.  She  herself  does 
something  about  each  message, — or  rather  all  the 
messages  except  those  which  result  in  what  we  call 
reflex  action.  She  sorts  the  messages  and  puts  away 
a  copy  of  each  in  its  proper  pigeon  hole,  which  we 
call  the  memory.  She  gives  such  orders  over  the 
wire  as  she  conceives  that  the  information  which 
she  has  received  necessitates.  In  other  words,  hers 
is  not  an  automatic  telephone. 

3.  In  short,  there  are  two  ways  of  knowing  things, 
— from  the  outside  and  from  the  inside.  External 
objects  we  know  from  the  outside  alone.  But  our- 
selves we  know  from  both  the  outside  and  the  inside. 
The  formulas  which  express  our  experiences  from 
the  outside,  received  by  sense  impressions,  we  call 
laws  of  nature;  the  formulas  to  express  our  expe- 
rience from  the  inside  we  call  doctrines  of  psychol- 
ogy, philosophy,  or  theology.  The  inside  information 
carries  more  weight ;  since  we  know  our  own  mental 
processes  at  first  hand,  while  our  outside  informa- 


THE    GRAMMAR    OF    THEOLOGY  23 

tiou,  whether  of  the  world  or  of  our  bodies,  we  get 
only  through  sense  impressions. 

4.  In  considering  what  goes  on  inside  the  ex- 
change, we  note,  first  of  all,  that  the  operator  is  af- 
fccted  by  every  message  which  comes  to  her.  No 
message  does  she  receive  with  entire  indifference. 
It  makes  her  glad  or  sad,  it  gives  her  pleasure  or 
pain,  comfort  or  discomfort.  The  message  has  this 
effect,  not  alone  by  reason  of  what  it  contains;  but 
by  reason  of  what  she,  herself,  is.  For  instance,  any 
observed  fact  which  fails  to  fit  in  with  our  rational 
scheme  of  cause  and  effect,  gives  us  discomfort  until 
it  is  "explained" ;  any  act  or  happening  which  seems 
to  us  unjust  arouses  indignation.  This  inherent  ten- 
dency, or  set,  of  the  mind,  which  is  the  subjective 
factor  in  affection  (psychological),  we  will,  for 
want  of  a  better  name,  call  a  "sense". 

5.  Every  human  being  has,  among  others^  the  fol- 
lowing "senses" : 

a.  A  sense  for  self-preservation. 

b.  A  sense  for  love ;  a  tendency  to  want  compan- 
ionship; a  desire  to  have  others  like  me  and 
an  equally  strong  desire  to  like  others;  an 
inherent  abhorrence  of  a  loveless  universe. 

c.  A  sense  for  loyalty,  akin  to  the  sense  for  love. 
This  is  the  tendency  which  makes  man  a  so- 
cial being. 

d.  A  sense  for  rationality ;  the  desire  to  arrange 
sense  impressions  in  logical  sequence;  the 
desire  to  relate  things  in  sequence  of  cause 
and  effect;  an  inherent  abhorrence  of  a  hel- 
ter-skelter universe. 

e.  A  sense  for  activity ;  a  tendency  to  take  some 
action  in  regard  to  each  sense  impression. 


24  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

f.  A  seuse  lor  purpose;  a  tendency  to  ask,  when- 
ever anything  hapi)ens^  "AVhat  is  it  doing 
that  for?"  An  inherent  abhorrence  of  a  squir- 
rel-cage universe. 

g.  A  sense  for  right;  a  tendency  to  say,  "I 
ought". 

h.  A  sense  for  justice;  an  inherent  abhorrence 
of  injustice  and  of  an  unjust  universe. 

i.  A  sense  for  reverence ;  a  tendency  to  look  up 
to  some  other  being,  human  or  supernatural, 
as  an  ideal. 

j.  A  sense  for  beauty. 

G.  These  "senses"  are  not  in  themselves  guides  of 
conduct.  Our  sense  for  self-preservation  does  not, 
for  instance,  tell  us  what  conduct  will  make  for  the 
well-being  of  the  organism.  That  is  for  the  intellect. 
The  sense  for  self-preservation  is  the  force  which 
drives  us  to  make  the  decision ;  and,  when  the  de- 
cision is  made,  to  shape  our  conduct  by  it.  Likewise, 
our  sense  for  right, — which  is  what  w^e  call  con- 
science. Any  sense  impression  which  violates  any 
one  of  these  senses  or  tendencies  gives  us  discomfort 
or  pain. 

7.  Each  one  of  these  senses  is  equally  postulated 
of  our  consciousness.  We  have  no  more  right  to 
ignore  our  sense  for  right  than  our  sense  for  ration- 
ality. We  should  reject  as  false,  or  at  least  incom- 
plete, any  explanation,  whether  of  a  particular  phe- 
nomenon or  of  the  universe  as  a  whole,  which  vio- 
lates either  our  sense  for  rationality  or  for  right. 

8.  There  is,  however,  another  aspect  of  reality  of 
which  we  must  take  account.  The  universe,  whether 
we  regard  it  as  an  external  entity  or  a  procession  of 
mental  images,  is  not  supine.  If  I  go  into  a  dark 
room,  not  knowing  that  a  chair  is  there,  I  hit  it 


THE    GRAMMAR    OF    THEOLOGY  25 

nevertheless.  Now,  the  rationalist  claims  that  phe- 
nomena do  prove  amenable  to  the  demands  of  his 
sense  for  rationality;  in  other  words  that  there  is 
a  rational  order  in  the  universe  independent  of  any 
tendency  of  his  to  find  it  there.  The  same  thing, 
however,  is  true  as  to  our  sense  for  right  and  for 
justice.  We  hold  that  the  universe  is  in  the  main 
righteous.  It  is  true  that  there  is  apparently  much 
sorrow  and  sin.  But  it  is  also  true  that  there  is 
apparently  much  irrationality.  At  the  basis  of 
every  system  of  science  lies  an  antinomy.  The  re- 
ligionist believes  that  apparent  evil  would,  if  our 
knowledge  were  complete,  appear  to  be  good.  The 
rationalist,  likewise,  believes  that  apparent  antin- 
omy would,  if  his  science  were  complete,  appear 
to  be  rational.  So  both  science  and  religion  end, 
as  they  began,  in  an  act  of  faith. 

9.  Science  is,  in  the  main,  based  upon  our  sense 
for  rationality,  our  sense  for  activity  and  our  sense 
for  purpose. 

10.  Keligion  is,  in  the  main,  based  upon  our  sense 
for  right,  our  sense  for  justice,  our  sense  for  love 
and  our  sense  for  reverence.  Keligion  is  the  attempt 
so  to  live  as  to  satisfy  these  "senses".  Theology  is 
the  attempt  so  to  explain  phenomena  as  to  satisfy 
these  "senses." 

11.  Now  it  so  happens  that  a  given  phenomenon, 
or  sense  impression,  may  at  first  sight  fail  to  satisfy 
both  our  sense  for  rationality  and  our  sense  for 
right.  In  other  words,  some  law  of  nature  may  ap- 
pear to  contradict  some  deductions  of  our  religious 
consciousness.  For  instance,  science  may  seem  to  tell 
us  that  all  our  actions  are  predetermined,  whereas 
we  feel  that  they  ought  to  be  free.  We  should  not, 
in  such  cases,  determine  off-hand  to  satisfy  our  sense 
for  rationality  at  the  expense  of  our  sense  for  right; 


26  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

we  should  rather  endeavor  to  find  some  explanation 
which  would  satisfy  both;  and  until  such  explana- 
tion appears  we  should  at  least  reserve  judgment. 

12.  Keligion,  however,  is  or  claims  to  be,  more 
than  a  way  of  regarding  the  outside  world.  It 
claims  to  have  data  of  its  own,  a  religious  experience 
parallel  with  sensuous  experience.  This  experience 
should  be  tested  and  analyzed  by  the  same  methods 
employed  by  science. 

Let  us  analyze  in  this  way  the  experience  of  sub- 
jective answer  to  prayer.  This  experience  is  either 
what  it  purports  to  be,  a  true  intuition  from  God, 
or  it  is  the  result  of  self-suggestion.  If  the  latter 
were  the  case  one  would  expect  that  the  answer 
would  be  in  accordance  with  the  expectation,  or  the 
wish,  of  the  person  who  prayed ;  but  it  is  very  often 
not  in  accordance  with  either.  A  second  objection 
to  the  self-suggestion  theory  is  that,  upon  that  hy- 
pothesis, the  strength  with  which  a  belief  is  held, 
rather  than  the  character  of  the  belief,  should  count. 
We  ought  not  to  find  any  strong  tendency  in  favor 
of  the  selection  and  survival  of  particular  underly- 
ing conceptions.  Now,  we  find  in  the  study  of  com- 
parative religion  that  certain  conceptions,  for  ex- 
ample Incarnation  and  Atonement,  are  continually 
cropping  up,  which  indicates  that  they  have  great 
survival  value.  It  is  very  difficult  to  resist  the  con- 
clusion that  the  particular  beliefs,  just  because  of 
their  character,  have  worked  better  than  other  be- 
liefs. If  so,  then  the  answer  to  prayer  would  appear 
to  be  in  some  manner  objectively  determined. 

13.  Religious  systems  vary,  just  as  do  scientific 
systems,  through  differences  both  in  experience  and 
in  the  deductions  made  from  experience.  We  hold 
to  Christianity,  rather  than  to  Mohammedanism,  be- 
cause we  believe,  both  that  it  embodies  more  valid 


THE    GRAMMAR    OF    THEOLOGY  27 

religious  experience,  and  that  its  doctrines  are  more 
accurate  deductions  from  that  experience,  than  those 
of  Mohammedanism. 

14.  Conclusion. 

A  natural  law  is  an  explanation  and  classification 
of  the  facts  of  sensuous  experience  so  as  to  satisfy 
our  sense  for  rationality.  A  doctrine  of  theology 
is  an  explanation  and  classification  of  the  facts  of 
both  sensuous  and  religious  experience,  so  as  to  sat- 
isfy our  religious  senses.  Neither  is  a  fiat  imposed 
by  authority  or  inexorable  necessity;  but  each  is  a 
formula  whereby  we  resume  the  facts  of  experience. 
We  can  no  more  live  without  theology  than  without 
science.  Every  man  has,  willy-nilly,  a  theology.  It 
is  the  purpose  of  this  course  to  find  an  explanation 
of  the  facts  of  experience  which  shall  satisfy  our 
senses  for  right,  justice,  love,  and  reverence. 


DISCUSSION   V. 

THE  WILL  TO  BELIEVE. 

1.  The  texture  of  thought.  We  are  all  weavers. 
Our  yarns  are  percepts  and  intuitions;  the  loom, 
our  nerves  and  brain;  the  pattern,  our  senses  for 
rationality,  activity,  right,  love,  justice,  and  rever- 
ence; the  finished  product,  our  systems  of  science, 
philosophy,  and  religion.  Our  product  is  partly 
conditioned  and  partly  free.  We  may  not  choose 
our  yarns;  but  we  may  choose  our  pattern. 

Problem:    When  belief  and  disbelief  are  both  pos- 
sible, which  should  we  choose? 

2.  An  explanation  of  a  phenomenon  or  act  is  a 
statement  of  its  relations  to  other  phenomena  or 
acts.  The  explanation  is  instinctively  constructed 
by  the  mind  in  accordance  with  certain  inherent 
tendencies  or  "senses," — such  as  the  sense  for  ra- 
tionality, right,  justice,  etc. 

3.  An  hypothesis  is  an  explanation  of  a  phenome- 
non or  act,  which  satisfies  some,  but  not  all,  of  our 
mental  tendencies,  or  "senses". 

4.  An  option  is  a  choice  between  hypotheses. 

5.  A  live,  or  practical,  option  is  one  having  a  bear- 
ing on  human  conduct. 

6.  Belief  is  the  acceptance  of  an  hypothesis  which 
satisfies  one  or  more,  but  not  all,  of  our  mental  ten- 
dencies, or  "senses". 

7.  Douht  is  the  refusal  to  accept  such  hypothesis. 


THE  WILL  TO  BELIEVE  29 

8.  In  all  cases  of  practical  options,  doubt  is,  there- 
fore, equivalent  in  effect  to  denial,  since  it  results 
in  the  same  conduct.  For  instance,  if  I  doubt  that 
I  can  swim  a  stream,  I  will  not  make  the  attempt, 
and  the  result  is  the  same  as  though  I  was  sure  that 
I  could  not  do  so.  In  such  cases  I  should  adopt 
the  hypothesis  that  will  result  in  conduct  most  bene- 
ficial. 

9.  Most  options  concerning  religious  hypotheses 
are  practical  options.  In  such  cases,  therefore,  we 
ought  to  believe.  The  world  honors  the  adventurer 
rather  than  the  timid  creature  who  waits  for  some- 
one else  to  try  first. 

10.  Belief  is  legitimate  only  in  making  a  choice 
between  two  hypotheses,  both  of  which  have  reason- 
able evidence  to  support  them.  It  should  not  lead 
us  wildly  to  override  evidence,  or  to  affirm  that  for 
which  there  is  no  evidence.    This  is  credulity. 

11.  In  some  cases  the  very  act  of  belief  or  disbe- 
lief may  create  the  condition  which  justifies  it.  To 
the  lover  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  his  love  is 
requited  is  a  practical  option.  Believe,  and  his  as- 
surance will  go  far  to  create  its  response.  Doubt, 
and — "Faint  heart  ne'er  won  fair  lady."  Belief 
and  doubt  may  often  both  be  objectively  right. 

12.  Conclusion.  The  theory  of  knowledge  devel- 
oped in  Discussions  III,  IV  and  V,  and  which  lies  at 
the  basis  of  the  argument  in  all  the  subsequent  lec- 
tures, may  be  recai)itulated  as  follows : 

a.  We  have  certitude  only  of  our  own  existence 
and  mental  processes. 

b.  The  outside  universe  we  know  only  as  a  series 
of  sense  impressions. 

c.  We   instinctively   arrange   phenomena,   and 


30  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

state  their  relations  to  other  phenomena  or 
acts.  Out  of  such  arrangement  arise  our 
concepts  of  matter,  time,  space,  motion,  force, 
energy,  and  cause  and  effect. 

d.  We  make  these  arrangements,  or  explana 
tions,  of  phenomena  in  accordance  with  cer- 
tain inherent  tendencies,  or  "senses", — such 
as  the  sense  for  rationality,  right,  justice,  etc. 
Each  of  these  senses  is  equally  postulated 
of  our  consciousness.  The  senses  for  ration- 
ality, etc.,  are  the  basis  of  science.  The 
senses  for  right,  justice,  etc.,  are  the  basis  of 
theology. 

e.  Hence  the  scientist,  like  the  theologian,  must 
at  the  very  outset  of  his  reasoning,  make  an 
act  of  faith,  namely  that  there  is  an  external 
reality  behind  his  sense  perceptions  and 
that  his  arrangement  and  explanation  of 
phenomena  corresponds  to  such  reality.  The- 
ology is  no  more  subjective  than  science.  All 
science  as  well  as  all  religion,  rests  on  a  rea- 
sonable exercise  of  the  Will  to  Believe. 

f.  No  explanation  of  phenomena  is  valid  which 
does  violence  either  to  our  scientific  sense  or 
to  our  religious  sense,  and  it  is  our  duty  to 
seek  an  explanation  satisfactory  to  both. 

g.  In  the  event  that  no  such  explanation  is 
found,  it  is  our  duty  to  hold  final  judgment 
in  abeyance,  but  to  act  upon  that  hypothesis 
which  will  result  in  conduct  most  beneficial. 

h.  Within  the  limits  defined,  it  is  not  only  our 
right,  but  our  duty,  not  to  await  absolute 
demonstration,  but  to  so  construct  our  uni- 
verse as  to  satisfy  our  religious  as  well  as 
our  scientific  sense,  and  then  to  act  boldly  on 
that  belief. 


DISCUSSION  VI. 

THE  IDEA  OF  GOD. 

1.  Practical  value  of  belief  in  God. 

a.  Historical — All  peoples  in  all  ages  have  be- 
lieved in  a  Supernatural  Power  or  Powers. 

b.  Individual — Our  own  hearts  register  a  de- 
sire to  believe  in  such  a  Power,  and  belief 
gives  high  ideals  and  courage  to  pursue  them. 

c.  Social — Unbelief  has  always  resulted  in  de- 
cadence. "If  there  were  no  God,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  invent  one/'  Voltaire. 

Problem:     Has  modem  science  made  it  impossible 
to  believe   in  a  personal   God? 

2.  Two  ideas  of  God. 

a.  Worship  of  ancestors,  heroes  and  rulers. 
Prevailing  type  among  the  North  European 
races,  such  as  the  Teutons  and  the  prehistoric 
Nordic  invaders  of  Greece  and  Italy;  devel- 
oped into  the  classical  mythologies  of  Greece 
and  Rome.  This  type  was  probably  at  the 
basis  of  the  Hebrew  religion. 

b.  Nature  worship.  Prevailing  t^pe  of  most 
Mediterranean  races,  such  as  the  indigenous 
races  of  Greece  and  Italy,  developing  later 
into  the  "mystery  religions". 

c.  Development  of  the  Ruler  God  type.  Victory 
of  one  nation  over  another  established  the 


32  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

superiority  of  the  Kuler  God  of  the  victors 
over  the  Ruler  God  of  the  vanquished.  Po- 
litical consolidation  thus  led  to  the  idea  of 
a  God  superior  to  all  other  Gods  and  fi- 
nally to  the  conception  of  one  God,  ruler 
of  the  whole  earth.  We  can  trace  this  de- 
velopment in  the  Old  Testament. 

d.  Development  of  the  Nature  God  type.  At 
first  the  Greeks  saw  a  God  in  every  tree  and 
every  river.  But  systematization  of  mate- 
rial phenomena  into  one  universe  led  to  the 
conception  of  One  God  immanent  in  all  Na- 
ture. 

e.  Both  ideas  found  place  in  Christendom.  In 
the  West  the  Roman  idea  of  God  as  a  Despot, 
Transcendent  and  Absent  from  the  material 
universe,  predominated.  Matter  was  base  and 
godless  and  operated  in  general  automati- 
cally. God  only  intervened  occasionally  by 
way  of  miracle.  In  the  East  the  Greek  idea 
of  God  as  immanent  in  Nature  prevailed. 
Matter  was  his  garment  and  all  phenomena 
were  manifestations  of  him.  The  former  con- 
cept was  that  of  Augustine,  the  latter  that 
of  Paul. 

3.  May  we  believe  in  a  Personal  God? 

a.  The  concept  of  a  Despot  God  is  in  conflict 
with  science. 

b.  The  concept  of  a  Nature  God  is  not  in  conflict 
with  science.  Science  merely  describes  the 
succession  of  phenomena ;  it  does  not  explain 
why  they  come.  It  is  not  in  conflict  with  the 
theory  that  they  are  the  direct  action  of  an 
eternally  creative  God. 

c.  May  this  God  be  personal?  Not  in  the  sense  of 


THE  IDEA   OF   QOD  33 

human  personality,  for  that  involves  limita- 
tions. But  because  God  is  not  personal,  it 
does  not  follow  that  he  is  impersonal,  for  by 
that  we  mean  less  than  personal.  We  may 
hold  him  to  be  more  than  personal.  Because 
we  deny  that  he  resembles  a  human  being, 
we  do  not  affirm  that  he  resembles  a  stone. 

d.  Science  does  not  conflict  with  the  idea  of  an 
immanent,  super-personal  God. 

e.  At  the  same  time  the  notion  of  a  wholly  im- 
manent God  is  incomplete.  A  transcendent 
God  is  one  who  is  outside  of  Nature  and  can't 
get  in ;  an  immanent  God  is  inside  of  Nature 
and  can't  get  out.  (See  Disc.  XI  and  Essay, 
Nicene  Idea  of  God,  in  Part  II.)  The  true 
God  cannot  be  subject  to  either  limitation. 

4.  Should  we  believe  in  a  Personal  God? 

a.  Since  this  is  a  practical  option,  and  since  be- 
lief in  God  is  conducive  to  a  more  perfect  life, 
we  should  believe.  Suspension  of  judgment  is 
morally  and  ethically  equivalent  to  denial. 

b.  But  belief  in  God  rests  not  alone  on  balanc- 
ing of  probabilities.  There  are  positive  evi- 
dences of  his  existence;  and,  since  we  look 
at  life  both  from  within  and  from  without, 
we  may  find  these  evidences  both  in  our  own 
nature  and  in  the  external  universe. 

c.  Evidences  from  within. 

i.  Belief  in  God  is  a  postulate  demanded  by 
our  mind  quite  as  imperatively  as  belief  in 
the  objective  existence  of  an  orderly  material 
universe.  Our  senses  for  right,  justice,  and 
reverence  are  quite  as  imperative  as  our 
sense  for  rationality;  and  both  senses  are 
equally  fundamental  and  valid. 


'M  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

ii.  The  existence  of  Human  Intelligence  pre- 
supposes the  existence  of  Divine  Intelligence. 
We  cannot  suppose  that  our  minds  are  the 
highest  psychic  element  in  the  universe.  Our 
sense  for  rationality  refuses  to  conceive  the 
psychic  to  be  uncaused,  or  to  be  caused  by 
the  non-psychic.  The  result  is  a  "function" 
of  (resembles)  the  cause.  As  the  Psalmist 
expresed  it,  "He  that  formed  the  ear,  shall 
he  not  hear?" 
d.  Evidence  from  without.  While  the  theory  of 
special  creation  obtained,  it  was  possible  to 
argue  the  existence  of  God  from  every  ab- 
normal phenomenon.  Since  we  have  come  to 
see  that  there  is  no  abnormal,  the  evidences  of 
God  in  phenomena  are  harder  to  see.  It  ap- 
pears at  first  sight  to  be  more  difficult  to 
demonstrate  the  agency  of  God  in  the  normal. 
The  air  would  be  difficult  to  detect,  if  we 
were  unable  to  produce  a  vacuum ;  and  there 
is  no  vacuum  from  God.  Nevertheless,  we 
are  able  to  see  that  God  is  demonstrated 
through  the  whole  course  of  nature,  as  fol- 
lows: 

i.  Our  interpretation  of  the  phenomenal  uni- 
verse requires  us  to  postulate  a  Power  work- 
ing for  righteousness.  The  old  argument  for 
God  proceeded  from  the  postulate  that  the 
visible  universe  was  good  and  well-ordered. 
We  know  that,  to  appearances,  the  universe 
is  not  all  good.  But  our  sense  for  right  and 
for  justice  still  demands  that  we  find  a  moral 
purpose  in  it ;  that  in  some  way  the  apparent 
evil  is  working  out  a  greater  Good.  But 
the  achievement  of  such  greater  Good  re- 
quires the  work  of  some  Power  for  Righteous- 


THE  IDEA   OF   GOD  35 

uess.  Ill  other  words,  the  visible  universe 
iiidicates  the  existence  of  God,  not  because 
it  is  good,  but  because  it  ought  to  be  good, 
ii.  The  course  of  evolution,  as  we  observe  it 
in  the  kirge,  seems  to  indicate  a  directed  pro- 
gress toward  higher  life.  In  other  words, 
it  seems  to  show  that  what  we  conceive  ought 
to  take  place  is  taking  place.  Such  progress 
can,  it  seems  to  me,  be  explained  only  by  the 
existence  of  God. 

iii.  Evolution,  also,  as  we  observe  it  in  par- 
ticulars,   seems   to    be   inexplicable   on   the 
theory  of  natural  selection  of  haphazard  va- 
riations.   Scientists  are  coming  to  agree  that 
variations  do  not  appear  to  be  always  hap- 
hazard, but  tend  often,  and  perhaps  usually, 
in   the   same   direction.     More,   they   are  in 
pretty  general  agreement  that  many  varia- 
tions, which  eventually  result  in  a  distinct 
improvement  in  type,  are  not  in  themselves 
of    any   assistance   to   the  organism   in   the 
struggle  for  existence,  and  hence  their  sur- 
vival and  fnrther  development  cannot  be  ex- 
plained by  natural  selection.     In  short,  va- 
riations  seem   to   display   the   operation    of 
some  intelligent  Power.     (See  Disc.  IX.) 
e.  The  evidence  from  religious  experience.    The 
motto  of  science  is  Experientia  docet.     If 
we  use  the  method  of  experience,  or  experi- 
ment, we  note  that  those  who  have  believed  in 
the  existence  of  God,  who  have  acted  upon 
that  belief,  who  have  lived  as  they  thought 
God  desired  them  to  live,  and  who  have  re- 
lied upon  his  aid,  have  appeared  to  receive 
aid  from  on  high.     (James,  Varieties  of  Re- 
ligious Experience.)     In  other  words,  those 


36  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

who  act  on  the  belief  in  God,  do  achieve  re- 
sults as  if  by  the  action  of  God.  (See  Disc. 
XVI.)  No  better  proof  is  possible  of  any 
theory,  either  of  theology  or  of  science. 

5.  Conclusion.  We  find  that  science  does  not  pre- 
clude belief  in  a  personal,  or  super-personal,  God ;  so 
that,  even  if  there  were  no  evidence  of  God,  we  ought 
to  believe,  since  the  option  is  a  practical  one.  But 
we  find,  further,  that  there  are  positive  evidences 
of  God,  both  within  and  without  us.  In  short,  the 
dogma  of  the  existence  of  God  satisfies  our  three 
criteria;  it  is  not  in  conflict  with  science;  it  epit- 
omizes religious  experience;  it  evokes  right  action. 
Mere  intellectual  assent,  however,  is  of  no  practical 
benefit.  We  must  "practice  the  presence  of  God," — 
learn  to  speak  to  him  and  give  him  an  opportunity  to 
speak  to  us.  We  must  so  live  as  one  in  the  presence 
of  God.  So  doing  we  shall  achieve  an  intuition  of 
God  which  is  more  than  argument,  and  for  which 
argument  can  but  clear  the  ground.  (See  Disc. 
XVI.)  "Whoso  doeth  the  will  of  God  shall  know  of 
the  doctrine.'' 


DISCUSSION  VII. 

THE  WILL. 

1.  Definition. 

The  will,  or  willing,  is  the  initiation  of  deliberate 
activity. 

Problem:     Is   the   human   will   really  free,   or   is 
conduct  pre-determined  ? 

2.  Objections  to  Freedom  of  the  Will. 

a.  Theological.  Contrary  to  omniscience  and 
omnipotence  of  God.  Renders  prophecy  im- 
possible. Doctrine  of  predestination. 

b.  Philosophical.  Violates  causation  and  spells 
anarchy.    Theory  of  determinism. 

c.  Scientific.  Opposed  to  what  biology  teaches 
of  heredity;  what  sociology  teaches  of  envi- 
ronment; what  psychology  teaches  of  the 
mechanism  of  willing  (force  of  habit,  sugges- 
tion, etc.)  ;  and  what  anatomy  teaches  of  ef- 
fect of  lesions  and  mal-formations  of  the 
brain. 

3.  Arguments  for  Freedom  of  the  Will. 

a.  Philosophical.  Since  there  are  arguments 
both  ways,  this  is  a  Practical  Option;  and 
we  should  believe  in  freedom,  if  such  belief 
will  be  beneficial  to  us. 

b.  Theological.  Our  sense  for  justice  demands 
that,  if  we  are  accountable  for  our  actions, 


38  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

we  must  be  free  to  choose.    No  real  religion 
is  possible,  if  we  are  but  machines. 

c.  Scientific.  Neither  the  teachings  of  biology, 
anatomy,  psychology,  nor  sociology  force  us 
to  the  conclusion  that  our  conduct  is  com- 
pletely determined.  (See  the  notes  covering 
this  Discussion  in  Part  III.) 

d.  Ethical.  Belief  that  our  actions  are  pre-de- 
termined  would  lesult  in  libertinism. 
Without  free-will  there  is  no  possibility  of 
moral  value  judgments,  praise  and  blame. 

e.  Experience.  We  feel  free.  That's  all  there 
is  about  it  for  most  of  us.  As  said  before, 
we  know  ourselves  from  the  inside  better  than 
from  the  outside  (Disc.  IV).  When  our  acts 
are  not  free,  as  in  case  of  hypnotism,  we  rec- 
ognize the  fact.  It  is  like  the  parable  of  the 
ass  midway  between  two  exactly  equal 
bundles  of  hay — would  he  starve? 

f.  Experimental.  We  find  that  those  who  as- 
sume that  the  will  is  free  and  act  thereon, 
who  in  other  words  perform  the  experimeni 
of  freedom,  do  in  fact  find  that  the  theory 
works.  This  is  the  final  test  of  any  theory 
In  short,  Ave  can  accept  the  theory  of  abso- 
Iv.te  determinism  only  by  entirely  disregard- 
ing all  the  '^inside"  evidence,  backed  up  as 
it  is  by  experiment. 

4.  In  the  absence  of  rational  reconciliation  of  the 
arguments  for  and  against  Freedom  of  the  Will  we 
must  believe  hoth  that  the  will  is  determined,  or  at 
least  conditioned,  and  that  it  is  free;  since  we  can- 
not, on  the  one  hand,  disbelieve  in  an  omnipotent 
God  and  an  orderly  universe,  nor  can  we,  on  the 
other  hand,  distrust  ourselves. 


THE  WILL  39 

5.  Suggested  rational  reconciliation. 

a.  Theological.  God  does  not  rule  but  overrules. 
God's  will  controls  every  phenomenon  except 
such  as  are  controlled  by  the  wills  of  his  crea- 
tures. God  has  limited  himself  to  that  ex- 
tent. But  self-limitation  is  not  a  contradic- 
tion of  omnipotence.  He  wills  that  man 
should  be  free,  yet  provides  coimter-checks, 
so  that  freedom  shall  not  spoil  the  divine 
plan.  Abuse  of  freedom  injures  only  the  man 
himself.  Example.  Assume  it  to  have  been 
God's  plan  that  democracy  should  triumph 
in  Europe.  That  might  have  been  brought 
about,  either  by  the  gradual  democratization 
of  Germany,  or  by  her  overthrow.  Germany 
chose  not  to  be  democratized,  but  to  fight. 
That  very  spirit  on  her  part  intensified  the 
spirit  of  democracy  in  the  other  countries, 
united  them  against  her  and  nerved  them  to 
efforts  of  which  they  would  not  otherwise 
have  been  capable.  God's  result  was  at- 
tained, yet  the  chain  of  causation  was  not 
broken.  The  very  acts  which  sought  to 
thwart  God's  will  were  the  cause  of  its  at- 
tainment. The  pre-eminent  example  of  such 
overruling  is  found  in  the  Crucifixion  and  its 
consequences. 

b.  Philosophical.  Indeterminism  is  not  lawless. 
It  does  not  violate  causation ;  only  the  cause 
does  not  completely  contain  the  effect;  some- 
thing is  added.  A  real  creation  is  taking 
place  at  every  moment.  The  result  is  pre- 
determined within  limits,  but  not  absolutely. 
Insofar  as  we  exercise  free  will  we  are  actu- 
ally partners  with  God  in  the  work  of  crea- 
tion. 


40  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

c.  Scientific.  There  is  no  evidence  that  heredity 
and  environment  absolutely  control  the 
individual,  we  are  entitled  to  hold  that  they 
merely  set  limits  to  his  development. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  anatomy  absolutely 
controls  thought.  Indeed  many  psycholo- 
gists, as  Wm.  James,  regard  the  brain  as  an 
organ  for  releasing  or  transmitting  mental 
energy,  rather  than  creating  it  (Disc.  VIII). 
It  is,  for  example,  impossible  to  explain  mem- 
ory as  a  matter  of  physiological  changes 
stored  up  in  the  brain  cells  (see  Bergson, 
Mind  Energy),  The  limits  within  which 
the  will  of  any  individual  is  free  we  may  call 
his  "zone  of  freedom"  (Disc.  XIV). 

6.  Conclusion. 
The  dogma  that  the  will  is  conditioned,  yet  free 
within  limits,  is  not  in  conflict  with  science,  it  most 
certainly  does  epitomize  our  religious  experience  and 
evoke  right  action;  hence  it  fulfills  our  criteria  of 
validity.  In  practice  we  find  that,  if  we  act  as 
though  the  will  ivere  free  and  exercise  it  in  a  certain 
direction,  we  may  extend  its  freedom  in  that  direc- 
tion. If  we  act  as  though  the  will  were  not  free,  we 
forge  new  chains.  Let  us  hold  ourselves  lords  of  our 
destinies  and  we  shall  find  that  we  are  freer  than 
we  think  . 


DISCUSSION   VMI. 

LIFE  ETERNAL. 

1.  History  of  the  belief.  Burial  with  food  and 
tools  in  the  Stone  Age  in  Europe  indicates  this  be- 
lief. Inscriptions  show  it  well  developed  in  primi- 
tive Egypt.  Also  in  China,  and  among  American 
Indians, — in  short  in  all  times  and  races.  Among 
Hebrews,  Greeks,  and  Romans  it  became  attenuated, 
but  not  entirely  lost.  One  source  of  strength  in 
early  Christianity  was  the  faith  that  Christ  had 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light.  This  indi- 
cates that  it  answers  a  fundamental  need  of  the 
human  heart. 

Problem:  Has  modern  science  made  this  belief 
untenable?  If  not  untenable,  can  it  be  said  to 
be  more  than  a  mere  possibility? 

2.  Position  of  science.  The  power  of  thought 
grows  with  the  growth  of  the  brain  and  nervous  sys- 
tem. Particular  phases  of  thought  are  localized  in 
particular  portions  of  the  brain, — as  hearing,  speech, 
motor  activity,  memory, — are  inhibited  by  local 
injuries,  and  affected  by  general  bodily  conditions. 
Hence  science  affirms  that  thought  is  a  function 
(mathematical)  of  the  brain.  (See  dictionary  defi- 
nition of  function,  mathematical.) 

3.  What  is  a  "function"  ?  There  are  three  sorts : 
production,  release  and  transmission, — examples, 
steam  produced  by  the  action  of  heat  on  water;  la- 


42  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

teut  energy  of  gunpowder  released  by  the  striking  of 
hammer  on  cartridge ;  sunlight  transmitted  by  glass. 
The  office  of  the  brain  may  be  the  release  or  trans- 
mission of  thought,  rather  than  its  creation.  No  phi- 
losopher and  no  careful  scientist  would  now  sup- 
port the  dictum  of  Biichner  that  the  brain  secretes 
thought  as  the  liver  secretes  bile.  The  brain  may 
canalize  thought,  or  be  the  means  whereby  thought 
is  brought  to  bear  on  matter.  An  injury  to  the 
brain  may  not  result  in  the  absence  of  thought,  but  in 
inability  to  express  thought.  If  this  be  so,  then 
death  would  not  spell  the  destruction  of  the  soul. 
Science,  therefore,  cannot,  and  does  not,  deny  the 
possibility  of  personal  immortality. 

4.  This  question  is  a  Practical  Option,  and,  there- 
fore, even  if  the  possibilities  are  even,  it  is  our  duty 
to  believe;  since  belief  admittedly  results  in  practi- 
cal benefit  (Disc.  V). 

5.  Our  sense  for  right,  for  justice,  for  love,  for 
self-preservation,  all  demand  belief  in  immortality. 
These  demands  are  just  as  fundamental  as  our  sense 
for  rationality,  and  no  scheme  of  things  is  valid 
which  does  not  take  them  into  account.  The  ancient 
Hebrews  endeavored  to  satisfy  our  sense  for  justice 
by  finding  the  divine  reward  and  punishment  in  this 
life.  The  books  of  Job  and  Ecclesiastes  demon- 
strate their  failure,  and  display  the  inevitable  re- 
sult,— pessimism.  Hence  the  later  Hebrews  were 
forced  to  accept  belief  in  immortality.  Our  sense  for 
love  demands  immortality  for  the  loved  ones;  our 
sense  for  self-preservation  demands  immortality  for 
ourselves.  Our  sense  for  perfection  demands  the 
objective  possibility  of  a  "better".  These  senses 
must  answer  to  objective  reality  (Disc.  IV). 

6.  To  suppose  matter  to  be  the  creator  of  mind  is 
to  put  the  cart  before  the  horse,  since  we  can  only 


LIFE  ETERNAL  43 

know  of  matter  through  mind.  The  materialistic 
philosopher  is  like  the  snake  which,  beginning  with 
the  tail,  ate  himself  up. 

7.  What  we  know  of  psychology  indicates,  it  seems 
to  me,  that  thought  is  transmitted,  rather  than  cre- 
ated, by  the  brain.  It  is  impossible,  for  example, 
to  explain  memories  as  stored  up  physically  in  the 
brain  cells  like  plates  in  a  photograph  gallery.  The 
mechanism  of  recollecting  seems  rather  to  be  the  sup- 
plying of  a  channel  through  which  the  superphysical 
memory  may  be  brought  to  light.  (See  Bergson, 
Mind  Energy.) 

8.  Applying  the  method  of  experiment,  which  is 
the  method  of  science,  we  find  that  this  belief  works ; 
that  on  the  whole  those  who  have  made  the  most  of 
their  lives  have  been  those  who  were  convinced  that 
they  were  immortal  and  who  lived  the  immortal  life 
here. 

9.  Conclusion. 

Science  does  not  preclude  belief  in  immortality. 
Judged  by  the  other  tests  which  we  should  apply  to 
any  theory,  this  theory  appears  to  be  demonstrated. 
But,  as  said  before,  arguments  can  merely  clear  the 
mind  of  supposed  objections.  This  done,  we  shall 
find  a  sort  of  intuition  of  immortality  emerging — 
and  if  we  then  live  in  accordance  with  this  intui- 
tion, we  shall  find  it  growing  to  absolute  certainty, 
— to  the  certainty  that  inspired  the  Christian  mar- 
tyrs to  face  death,  not  only  with  fortitude,  but  with 
eagerness.  Our  faith  will  then  be  vital, — the  only 
sort  worth  while. 


B— WHAT  THINK  YE  OF  CHRIST? 
The  Philosophy  of  Christian  Doctrine. 

DISCUSSION  IX. 

THE  CREATING  GOD. 
1.  The  theory  of  special  creation. 

a.  Statement  of  the  theory.  That  God  specially 
created  each  heavenly  body  and  afterward 
each  form  of  living  being  and  left  them  to 
develop  through  forces  inherent  in  them- 
selves, except  as  he  might  and  did  intervene 
and  suspend  the  operation  of  such  forces  by 
way  of  miracle. 

b.  History  of  the  theory.  Originally  the  rela- 
tions between  phenomena  were  imperfectly 
understood.  Phenomena  were  largely  re- 
garded as  independent  and  self-subsisting. 
Hence  the  existence  of  each  demanded  a  sep- 
arate creative  act.  When  some  new,  or  un- 
usual, phenomenon  appeared,  a  special  cre- 
ative act  was  presumed, — that  is,  a  miracle. 
Miracle,  therefore,  as  formerly  understood, 
was  only  a  special  case  of  special  creation, 
a  special  creative  act  performed  in  the  course 
of  time.  With  primitive  man  the  field  of 
miracle  was  very  wide.  All  happenings 
which  were  unusual,  and  of  which  the  ante- 
cedents were  not  clearly  apparent,  were  as- 


THE   CREATING   ODD  45 

cribed  to  special  intervention  of  Deity.  As 
these  antecedents  became  known,  the  field  of 
direct  intervention  of  Deity  became  more  and 
more  restricted  (Disc.  II),  until  by  the  nine- 
teenth century  it  was  confined  to  original  cre- 
ation and  a  score  or  so  of  Biblical  miracles. 

2.  The  theory  of  evolution. 
a.  Statement  of  the  theory. 

i.  That  every  material  phenomenon  is  related 
to  an  antecedent  material  phenomenon  and 
that  such  relations  are  uniform, — or,  as  com- 
monly stated,  that  all  material  things  evolve 
from  material  causes  in  accordance  with 
natural  laws. 

ii.    That  the  various  forms  of  life  are  the  re- 
sults of  a  growth  from  the  homogeneous  and 
generalized  to  the  heterogeneous  and  special- 
ized, 
b.  Basis  of  the  theory. 

i.  Evidence  from  comparative  zoology  and 
anatomy. 

ii.  Evidence  from     comparative  embryology, 
iii.  Evidence  from  paleontology, 
iv.  Experimental  evidence  in  variation  and 
mutation  of  species. 
Problem:     Has  the  theory  of  evolution  substituted 
naural  forces  for  God  as  the  creator  of  the  ma- 
terial universe  and  of  man? 

3.  The  philosophy  and  theology  of  evolution. 

a.  While  the  theory  of  evolution,  as  outlined 
above  (§2),  is  firmly  established,  the  method 
of  evolution  is  still  in  doubt.  As  now  under- 
stood by  scientists  it  differs  widely  from  that 
set  forth  by  Darwin.  He  ascribed  all  evolu- 
tion to  the  operation  of  natural  selection 
upon  minute,  haphazard  variations.     Scien- 


4(1  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

tists  are  now  coming  to  hold  that  the  varia- 
tions are  not  always  minute  and  are  not  us- 
ually haphazard.  Often  a  new  variety  ap- 
pears as  the  result  of  a  single  mutation.  And 
a  careful  study  of  variations  seems  to  show 
that  they  occur  often,  perhaps  usually,  in  a 
given  direction.  This  appears  strikingly  in 
the  study  of  the  evolution  of  particular  or- 
gans. Thus,  the  eye  appears  to  have  devel- 
oped from  the  skin  cells  of  the  face  by  a  con- 
catenated series  of  changes,  none  of  which 
by  itself  would  have  been  of  any  use  to  the 
organism  in  the  struggle  for  existence.  More, 
it  requires  a  similar  development,  all  in  the 
same  direction,  of  the  cells  over  a  very  wide 
area;  and  should  the  development  of  one 
group  of  cells  not  keep  pace  with  the  others, 
the  eye  would  be  useless.  ( Bergson,  Creative 
Evolution,  pp.  60-97.)  To  us  it  seems  that 
this  directive  Power  is  a  personal  God,  act- 
ing by  way  of  what  we  have  called  "vertical" 
causation.  "He  that  formed  the  eye,  shall  he 
not  see?" 

b.  The  same  conclusion  is  reinforced  by  the 
growth  of  the  individual.  Organs  appear  and 
reach  their  full  development  in  the  foetus, 
which  are  only  useful  after  birth.  Some  in- 
sects in  the  pupa  stage  undergo  a  breaking 
down  of  organs  and  most  of  the  body  is  re- 
duced to  a  jelly,  out  of  which  new  organs  are 
formed,  so  that  the  later  stage  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  a  lineal  development  from  the 
larval  stage,  but  a  fresh  start. 

c.  Biologists  have  demonstrated  that  acquired 
characteristics  are  not  transmitted  to  the  off- 
spring (although  this  doctrine  was  never  held 


THE    CREATING    OOn  ^7 

by  Darwin,  but  was  proposed  by  Lamarck)  ; 
but  that  specific  changes  in  the  organism 
arise  through  modifications  in  the  germ 
plasm.  It  follows  that  environment  does  not 
directly  produce  modification  of  species  or 
affect  the  course  of  evolution. 

d.  While  the  theory  that  variations  in  species 
are  produced  by  the  operation  of  natural  se- 
lection on  minute  variations  has  been  modi- 
fied and  supplemented  as  outlined  above,  it 
by  no  means  follows  that  natural  selection  is 
uo  longer  regarded  as  a  factor  in  evolution. 
Only  its  function  is  now  regarded  as  largely 
negative.  It  weeds  out  the  unfit  and  hence 
gives  a  chance  for  the  free  development  of  the 
fit.  It  explains  the  survival,  rather  than  the 
arrival,  of  species. 

e.  The  evolutionary  conception,  although  it 
originated  in  the  field  of  biologj^,  has  been  ap- 
plied to  astronomy,  anthropology,  sociology, 
history,  and  religion,  and  it  appears  to  gov- 
ern all. 

f.  The  theory  of  evolution  does  not  banish  God, 
for  it  is  purely  descriptive;  it  concerns  the 
manner  in  which  development  takes  place, 
not  why  it  does  so.  The  statement  that  the 
tadpole  grows  into  the  frog  does  not  in  the 
least  tell  us  why  he  grows. 

g.  In  short,  there  are  two  sorts  of  cause.  One 
sort  is  merely  the  physical  antecedent  of  the 
phenomenon,  the  other  is  the  metaphysical 
power  that  produced  the  change  (Disc.  III). 
The  statement  that  every  material  phenom- 
enon is  related  to  an  antecedent  material 
phenomenon  and  that  such  relations  are  uni- 
form, does,  indeed,  exclude  purely  supernat- 


48  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF  , 

ural  elements  from  causation  in  the  hori- 
zontal plane ;  but  no  amount  of  investigation 
in  the  horizontal  plane  can  make  it  possible 
for  us  to  cancel  the  necessity  for  the  vertical 
causation.  And  this  vertical  causation,  our 
religious  senses  assure  us,  can  be  none  other 
than  God.  If,  as  we  maintain,  phenomena  are 
not  wholly  determined  by  their  antecedents, 
then  God  is  actually  continuing  the  work  of 
creation  day  by  day.  And  we,  in  so  far  as  we 
exercise  free  will  congruently  with  the  Di- 
vine Will,  are  also  engaging  in  the  work  of 
creation. 

4.  Miracles. 

A  miracle,  as  formerly  understood,  is  merely  a 
particular  act  of  special  creation;  it  is  the  inter- 
calation of  a  purely  supernatural  term  into  a  series 
of  phenomena.  We  now  hold  that  such  special  acts 
are  impossible,  or  perhaps  we  should  say  unimagin- 
able. But  this  impossibility  relates,  not  to  the  act- 
uality of  the  alleged  happening,  but  simply  to  the 
explanation  of  it.  A  miracle  should  be  defined  as 
an  act  which  calls  into  play  forces  with  which  we  are 
unfamiliar.  Death  would  be  a  miracle,  if  it  hap- 
pened only  occasionally.  Until  we  know  more  of  the 
laws  of  nature,  particularly  in  the  field  of  psychol- 
ogy, we  cannot  be  dogmatic.  Each  supposed  miracle 
is  to  be  judged  on  its  own  evidence. 

The  evolutionary  theory  has  substituted  a  dy- 
namic for  a  static  universe.  It  has  not  abolished 
God ;  but  it  has  ennobled  our  conception  of  him.  It 
has  given  us  an  immanent  and  eternally  creative 
God  for  an  absentee  and  arbitrary  God.  God  still 
acts  in  the  world;  but  his  action  is  a  push,  instead 
of  a  pull. 


DISCUSSION  X. 

THE  REVEALING  GOD. 

1.  The  Bible  is  not  infallible. 

a.  It  is  historically  inaccurate.  Examples :  Lan- 
guages were  not  given  at  Babel,  nor  the  Law, 
complete,  on  Sinai.    Both  grew. 

b.  It  is  scientifically  inaccurate.  Examples: 
There  is  no  water  under  the  earth ;  and  the 
sun  did  not  stand  still  at  Gibeon;  the  whale 
did  not  swallow  Jonah. 

c.  More  serious, — it  is,  in  part,  ethically  imma- 
ture. Example,  the  command  of  Jehovah  to 
kill  all  the  Canaanites;  the  imprecatory 
psalms ;  the  law  ''an  eye  for  an  eye." 

d.  Most  serious, — it  is,  in  part,  spiritually  in- 
sufficient. Example,  Ecclesiastes,  the  book  of 
an  agnostic  and  a  pessimist. 

Problem :  If  the  Bible  is  not  infallible,  how  can  it 
be  said  to  be  inspired  by  God,  since  God  does 
not  err? 

2.  The  doctrine  of  Biblical  Infallibility  is  almost 
as  modern  as  that  of  Papal  Infallibility. 

a.  Christ  did  not  regard  the  Bible  as  infallible. 
Example,  "It  was  said  by  them  of  old  time, — 
but  I  say". 

b.  St.  Paul  did  not  so  regard  it.     "The  Law 


50  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

(i.  e.  the  first  five  books  of  the  Bible)   has 
been  a  child's  slave  to  bring  us  to  Christ." 

c.  The  early  Church  did  not  so  regard  it.  In 
fact  the  early  Church  exercised  its  discretion 
in  selecting  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
and,  to  some  extent,  in  accepting  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

d.  In  the  Middle  Ages  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  was  augmented;  but  prior  to  the  Re- 
formation it  was  screened  and  mitigated  by 
the  doctrine  of  an  infallible  Church,  which 
not  only  determined  what  books  should  be 
accepted,  but  explained  and  interpreted  the 
books,  so  as  to  mitigate  the  literal  meaning. 
The  Bible  was  accepted,  not  on  its  own  au- 
thority, but  on  the  authority  of  the  infallible 
Church. 

e.  At  the  Reformation  the  reformers  for 
the  most  part  denied  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church,  leaving  the  infallible  Book  as  the  ul- 
timate authority. 

3.  What  is  inspiration? 

It  is  not  the  Books,  but  the  writers  of  the  Books, 
who  were  inspired.  The  inspiration  of  the  Books, 
then,  is  a  special  instance  of  inspiration  in  general. 
Inspiration  may  be  defined  as  the  operation  of  the 
Divine  Spirit  in  the  soul  of  man.  This  operation 
may  be  ordinary,  as  in  daily  strength  and  counsel 
imparted  intuitively,  or  extraordinary,  as  in  the 
visions  and  experiences  of  mystics.  The  latter  form 
is  spoken  of  as  revelation.  While  more  striking, 
we  are  taught  by  St.  Paul  that  it  is  not  more  val- 
uable than  the  ordinary  form.  Neither  form  of  in- 
spiration is  an  infallible  guide.  Obviously  "ordin- 
ary" inspiration  is  often  choked  and  distorted  by 


THE  REVEALING  GOD  51 

the  mind  of  the  recipient,  and  supposed  revelations 
may  sometimes  be  insane  delusions.  St.  John  recog- 
nized this  and  warned  that  we  must  "test  the  spirits, 
whether  they  be  of  God'\  The  test  of  inspiration  is 
laid  down  by  Christ,  as  also  by  St.  Paul :  "By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them.'^ 

4.  The  inspiration  of  the  Bible. 

a.  Not  all  inspired  persons  wrote.  Example, 
Jesus. 

b.  Not  all  inspired  books  are  in  the  Bible. 

c.  The  books  of  the  Bible  are  in  part  a  record 
of  revelations,  as  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John 
and  some  of  the  prophetic  writings,  and  in 
part  a  record  of  "ordinary"  inspiration,  as 
the  historical  and  wisdom  books. 

d.  Judged  by  the  criterion  which  our  Lord  laid 
down,  all  the  books  are  not  equally  edifying. 
This  indicates  not  an  imperfection  in  God, 
but  in  the  writer.  The  Spirit  must  needs  act 
through  a  human  mind  and  soul.  He  comes 
to  us  "as  through  a  glass  darkly". 

e.  In  general  the  Books  show  a  progressive  de- 
velopment in  ethical  and  spiritual  value. 
They  may  be  said  to  be  the  record  of  a 
developing  receptivity  to  inspiration.  There- 
in lies  their  greatest  value.  They  show  God 
at  work,  not  static  as  in  the  Koran.  They 
show  the  gradual  ennobling  of  religious  con- 
cepts through  divine  influence.  The  author- 
ity of  the  Books  of  the  Bible  rests  on  their 
own  inherent  value,  not  on  external  author- 
ity and  wholly  regardless  of  questions  of  au- 
thorship. 

5.  Conclusion. 

So  understood,  the  Bible  becomes  more  valuable 


52  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

to  us;  as  it  no  longer  forces  our  submission,  but 
wins  our  allegiance  by  satisfying,  in  the  main,  the 
very  highest  religious  ideals  of  the  race.  The  writers 
become  real  men,  instead  of  stained-glass-window 
saints.  They  are  no  longer  mere  receiving  instru- 
ments, recording  automatically  a  celestial  message. 
We  read  what  they  have  written  in  the  light  of  the 
problems  that  confronted  them, — problems  much  like 
our  own, — and  we  gain  a  new  appreciation;  the 
Bible  means  more  to  us,  because  we  understand  it 
better. 


DISCUSSION  XI. 

THE  NICENE  IDEA  OF  GOD. 
(For  a  fuller  discussion  see  Part  II.) 

1.  Definition. 

The  Trinity  is  usually  defined  as  the  Godhead  in 
one  Substance  and  three  Persons. 

2.  Ordinary  interpretation. 

The  ordinary  Christian  either  construes  this  to 
denote  three  individualities  united  with  some  unde- 
fined nexus,  or  he  dismisses  the  doctrine  from  his 
mind  as  something  quite  beyond  rational  processes. 
In  the  first  case  he  lapses  into  practical  tri-theism. 
In  the  latter  case  he  regards  the  doctrine  as  an  en- 
cumbrance, about  which  the  less  said  the  better.  The 
concept  is  either  grotesque  or  vacuous.  In  either 
case  it  fails  to  meet  the  criterion  of  a  formulation 
of  the  facts  of  religious  experience.  It  is  not  seen 
to  have  any  practical  bearing  whatsoever. 

Problem:     Is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  intelligi- 
ble; and,  if  so,  has  it  any  practical  bearing? 

3.  Development  of  the  doctrine. 

a.  Development  of  the  concepts  of  God  the 
Father  and  of  God  the  Spirit  in  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

b.  The  Logos  concept. 

c.  The  dispute  as  to  the  relation  between  these 
concepts.    Arius  vs.  Athanasius. 


54  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

d.  The  question  at  Mcaea  was  not  whether 
Christ  was  divine, — all  parties  agreed  to 
that, — but  whether  or  not  there  were  three 
Gods.  The  chief  concern  of  Athanasius  and 
of  the  Council  was  the  affirmation  of  the 
unity  of  the  Deity. 

4.  Language  of  the  dogma. 

That  there  is  one  substance  (substantia,  ovo-ta) 
but  three  persons  (personaeyVwocrTdcreLs).  The  Eng- 
lish words  absolutely  misrepresent  the  original. 
Suhstantia  and  ova-ca  mean  "being".  The  word  per- 
sona in  Koman  Law  meant  "an  aggregate  of  legal 
rights  and  duties".  A  citizen  might  have  several 
personae;  for  example,  as  father,  as  guardian,  as  gov- 
ernor, as  trustee.  What  the  Early  Church  Fathers 
sought  to  express  was  that  the  nature  of  the  Deity, 
while  essentially  one,  is  complex,  three-sided  in 
function.  God  in  essence  is  one,  but  in  his  revela- 
tion of  himself  he  has  three  aspects,  manifestations, 
capacities,  or  functionings.  This  complexity  of  func- 
tioning corresponds  to  some  real  complexity  of  be- 
ing ;  but  there  are  not  three  individualities.  The  em- 
phasis was  upon  the  unity,  since  it  was  the  dis-uni- 
tarian  idea  of  Arius  which  called  forth  the  doctrine. 

5.  Practical  aspects  of  the  doctrine. 

All  three  concepts  are  necessary  to  a  well-bal- 
anced idea  of  God. 

a;  A  God  transcendent  only  (Father)  is  con- 
trary to  modern  science,  which  requires  an 
immanent  God.     (Discs.  VI  and  IX.) 

b.  A  God  immanent  only  (Spirit)  tends  to  pan- 
theism. 

c.  A  God  humanistic  only  ( Son )  becomes  a  mere 
super-man,  whom  we  maj'  love  but  not  wor- 
ship. 


THE  NICENE  IDEA  OF  OOD  55 

6.  Conclusion. 

It  is  the  peculiar  glory  of  Christianity  that  it 
has  retained  all  three  concepts  and  held  the  balance 
between  them.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  both 
intelligible  and  practical. 


DISCUSSION  XII. 

JESUS  THE  MAN. 

1.  Conclusions  of  historical  criticism  as  to  the 
Gospel  records. 

First  came  oral  tradition,  reduced  to  writing  in 
the  Logia  (45-55  A.  D.)  and  Mark  (60-70  A.  D.). 
Matthew  was  compiled  from  these  two  (70-80  A.  D.). 
Luke,  also,  was  built  on  these  two,  together  with 
other  sources,  chiefly  concerning  the  Infancy  (70-80 
A.D.).  John  was  a  philosophical  essay  based  on 
the  Synoptics,  with,  perhaps,  other  sources  (about 
100  A.  D.).  Our  earliest  complete  existing  manu- 
scripts date  from  the  fifth  century.  But  there  are 
numerous  manuscripts  of  portions  of  the  Gospels 
from  the  fourth  century  and  fragmentary  materials 
from  the  third. 

Problem:  Does  historical  criticism  leave  us  any 
assurance  of  the  facts  of  Jesus'  life;  and,  if  so, 
just  what  did  He  do  and  how  did  He  regard 
Himself? 

2.  Proofs  of  authenticity. 

a.  External.  Approximate  agreement  of  all  ex- 
isting manuscripts  gives  assurance  that  we 
have  the  hooks  as  originally  written.  The  im- 
mediate and  universal  acceptance  of  the 
hooks  by  the  Christians  of  the  time  when  the 
books  were  written  gives  assurance  that  they 
faithfully  reproduced  the  existing  and  ac- 


JESUS  THE  MAN  57 

cepted  oral  traditions.  The  remarkable  ac 
curacy  with  which  oral  traditions  were  in 
those  days  transmitted  for  long  periods  of 
time  gives  assurance  that  the  narratives  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  were  not  substantially  al- 
tered in  the  thirty  years  between  his  cruci- 
fixion and  the  writing  of  Mark  and  the  Logia. 

b.  Internal.  The  narrative  of  the  life  possesses 
consistency  impossible  to  fiction.  If  the  say- 
ings were  invented,  the  inventor  must  have 
been  a  religious  genius  as  great  as  Jesus. 
The  narratives  contain  many  passages  in 
which  the  theology  is  more  primitive  than 
that  of  the  time  when  the  gospels,  in  their 
present  form,  were  written.  The  divergences 
between  the  several  gospels,  and  the  occa- 
sional discrepancies  in  different  parts  of  the 
same  gospel,  furnish  strong  evidence  of  the 
absence  of  invention  or  collusion.  In  short, 
the  internal  evidence  is  conclusive  as  to  the 
substantial  historical  accuracy  of  the  Synop- 
tic narratives. 

3.  Life  of  Jesus. 
Beginning  his  ministry  in  Galilee  he  traveled 
about  teaching  and  healing  souls  and  bodies.  He 
taught  by  story  and  homely  epigram.  He  healed  by 
bringing  to  bear,  with  consummate  knowledge  of 
the  soul,  the  laws  of  suggestion  to  clear  away  the 
obstacles  that  hindered  the  healing  power  of  God 
from  flooding  in.  Causes  of  hostility  to  him  (among 
others)  :  Pharisees,  because,  while  he  observed  the 
Law,  he  taught  an  ethics  superseding  it.  Saddu- 
cees :  because  they  feared  he  would  start  a  rebellion. 
How  would  he  get  on  to-day  in  these  respects? 


58  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

4.  Death. 

a.  Trial  and  Crucifixiou.  The  Sanhedrin  had  no 
power  of  trial  or  sentence  in  capital  cases; 
but  was  empowered  to  indict  accused  per- 
sons, and  present  them  for  trial  to  the  Pro- 
curator. It  appears,  although  the  record  is 
rather  scanty,  that  they  examined  Jesus  on  a 
charge  of  blasphemy,  and  then  presented  him 
for  trial  on  a  charge  of  treason.  If  Pilate 
observed  any  of  the  Roman  criminal  proce- 
dure in  the  trial,  the  record  does  not  show  it. 
b.  The  place  of  the  Cross.  At  first  the  Incar- 
nation and  the  Resurrection,  rather  than  the 
Death,  were  regarded  as  the  great  redeeming 
acts.  Later  the  Cross  was  over  emphasized 
in  the  effort  to  find  an  analogy  to  the  Jewish 
sin  offering.  Yet  we  should  not  go  to  the 
other  extreme  of  regarding  the  Death  as  un- 
important. Symbolically  it  set  the  seal  upon 
the  new  covenant.  (Every  treaty  required  a 
sacrifice  to  give  it  validity.  Gf.  a-rrovSaC ,  the 
Greek  word  for  treaty,  which  is  the  plural  of 
o-TTovSiJ,  meaning  libation.  Note,  also,  that 
sacrifices  ratified  God's  covenants  with  Noah, 
Abraham,  and  Moses.)  Actually  it  empha- 
sized and  formed  the  dramatic  climax  to  the 
Life,  without  which  the  Life  and  Teachings 
would  have  lost  much  of  their  force.  (See 
Disc.  XV.) 

5.  Resurrection. 

a.  Proofs.  Paul,  writing  twenty  years  later, 
says  that  Jesus  was  seen  by  about  five  hun- 
dred, most  of  whom  were  then  alive.  This 
could  not  have  been  delusion,  since  the  ele- 
ments of  delusion  were  lacking ;  his  followers 
were  not  expecting  to  see  him,  in  fact  they 


JESUS  THE  MAN  59 

had  all  forsaken  him  and  fled.  Furthermore, 
such  a  delusion,  extending  to  so  many  per- 
sons, at  different  times  and  widely  separated 
places  is  unheard-of.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  they  were  all  thoroughly  convinced  of 
the  reality  of  their  experience.  There  is  no 
other  way  to  account  for  the  wonderful 
change  which  came  over  them:  the  cowards 
became  martyrs, 
b.  The  place  of  the  Resurrection.  Paul  gives  the 
*  Resurrection  the  central  place  in  the  scheme 
of  redemption.  Christ  by  his  death  had  con- 
quered  the  flesh  and  by  his  rising  in  a  spir- 
itual body  had  made  it  possible  for  us  to 
put  on  immortality.  For  Paul,  this  change  to 
immortality  takes  place  during  this  life  and 
is  brought  about  by  Faith  and  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit;  and  for  the  man  who  has  been  so 
born  again  the  Law  has  lost  its  force.  Man 
becomes  literally  a  new  creature. 

6.  The  Messiahship. 

a.  Jewish  expectations.  There  were  two  main 
types  of  Messianic  expectation,  based  on  dif- 
ferent lines  of  prophecy.  One  was  of  a  hu- 
man being,  descended  from  David,  a  quasi- 
military  conqueror  using  earthly  armies,  but 
endowed  with  strength  by  God.  The  other, 
based  on  Isaiah  and  the  apocalypses  (Dan- 
iel, Enoch,  etc.)  was  of  a  super-human  be- 
ing, angel  or  quasi-divine,  who  should  come 
from  heaven  with  angelic  hosts;  a  belief 
nearly  identical  with  the  expectation  of  the 
Second  Coming  now  entertained  by  Adven- 
tists.  Neither  expectation  included  the  ele- 
ment of  a  suffering  Messiah.     (Is.  53). 


60  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

b.  Jesus'  conception.  Jesus  seems  to  have  real- 
ized completely  his  special  mission  first  at 
the  time  of  his  baptism.  Without  doubt  he 
considered  that  this  mission  had  to  do  with 
bringing  in  the  Messianic  kingdom.  His  con- 
ception of  the  Messiah  corresponded  with 
the  more  exalted  of  the  Jewish  expectations 
above  stated,  plus  the  element  of  achievement 
through  suffering, — the  Messiah  must  first 
suffer  before  he  is  proclaimed  from  on  high. 
This  conception  was  compatible  with  an  in- 
definite postponement  of  the  moment  of  such 
proclamation.  Besides,  he  saw  clearly  that 
the  Jews  stood  in  need  of  much  preparation 
before  they  should  be  fit  to  take  part  in  that 
kingdom.  They  must  in  the  first  place  learn 
that  Love  and  not  the  Law  was  to  be  the  rul- 
ing principle.  EQs  ethical  precepts  can  be 
best  understood  when  we  remember  that  they 
were  intended  as  the  constitution  of  the  com- 
ing Messianic  Kingdom.  "Of  such  and  such 
is  the  Kingdom  of  God.''  When  he  should 
have  brought  the  Jews  to  an  acceptance  of 
this  constitution,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
would  God  proclaim  it.     But  "of  that  day 

and  that  hour  knoweth  no  one neither  the 

Son ;  but  the  Father". 

Until  that  time,  it  appears  to  have  been  a 
matter  of  indifference  to  him  whether  the 
Jews  should  regard  him  as  the  Messiah,  or 
merely  a  forerunner  of  the  kingdom.  In 
fact  there  were  advantages  in  remaining,  so 
to  speak,  incognito,  until  God  should  pro- 
claim him.  He  could  better  accomplish  his 
social  regeneration,  if  his  followers  were  not 
dazzled  by  the  immediate  prospect  of  renown ; 


JESUS  THE  MAN  61 

and  he  would  be  much  less  likely  to  incur 
the  hostility  of  the  Romans,  thereby  bringing 
on  a  crisis  prematurely.  Consequently,  while 
he  did  not  deny  his  Messiahship,  he  never 
openly  affirmed  it,  until  upon  his  trial,  when 
he  no  doubt  realized  that  then  or  never  must 
he  declare  himself  in  no  uncertain  way.  He 
had,  to  be  sure,  disclosed  it  secretly  to  his 
disciples,  after  Peter  had  stated  his  belief; 
but  he  had  enjoined  them  that  they  should 
tell  no  man.  So  much  in  doubt  were  the  San- 
hedrin  as  to  his  Messianic  claims  that,  up  to 
the  time  of  his  open  declaration  before  them, 
they  rested  their  charge  of  blasphemy  only 
on  testimony  of  his  assertion  that  he  would 
destroy  the  temple. 

Toward  the  close  of  his  life  he  realized 
that  the  hostility  of  the  Jews  would  end  in 
his  death ;  and  he  relied  upon  his  disciples  to 
carry  on  the  preparation  for  the  Kingdom, 
assuring  them  that,  when  their  work  was 
accomplished,  he  would  return  to  earth  and 
assume  his  throne.  They  understood  him  as 
promising  that  this  consummation  ("the  con- 
summation of  the  age,"  not  "the  end  of  the 
world,"  as  the  King  James  version  translates 
it)   would  be  shortly  accomplished. 


DISCUSSION  XIII. 

WHAT  THINK  YE  OF     CHRIST? 

1.  Modern  emphasis  on  the  humanity  of  Jesus. 
Orthodox  theology  has  always  taught  that  Jesus 

had  a  complete  human  nature.  Kecent  thought  has 
served  to  emphasize  the  logical  deduction  from  this 
doctrine, — that  his  was  a  human  mind,  as  well  as 
a  human  body, — a  mind  subject  to  the  scientific  limi- 
tations of  the  time,  as  well  as  a  body  subject  to  in- 
firmity. He  was  neither  omnipotent  nor  omnis- 
cient. "He  could  do  no  mighty  work  there  and  he 
marveled  because  of  their  unbelief."  "Of  that  day 
and  hour  knoweth  no  one.... neither  the  Son,  but 
the  Father." 

Problem:  If  Jesus  was  a  man,  how  can  he  be 
said  to  be  divine  in  any  other  sense  than  men 
in  general? 

2.  Development  of  Christology. 

To  understand  the  problem  it  is  necessary  to  trace 
the  development  of  the  Christian  teaching  about 
the  nature  of  Christ,  called  Christology. 

a.  Primitive  Christology.  The  disciples  appear 
to  have  accepted  the  fact  of  Jesus'  Messiah- 
ship  almost  from  the  first,  but  to  have  been 
in  doubt  as  to  its  nature  throughout  his  life 
and  for  long  after.  During  his  life  we  find 
them  continually  uncertain  as  to  which  of 
the  Jewish  conceptions  they  should  hold,  con- 


WHAT  THINK  YE  OF  CHRIST  63 

tinually  asking  as  to  how  and  when  the  King- 
dom should  be  proclaimed  and  what  sort  of 
Kingdom  it  was  to  be.  After  the  Resurrec- 
tion, however,  they  seem  to  have  come  to  a 
fuller  understanding  of  Jesus'  interpretation 
of  his  mission  (Disc.  XII,  6b).  This  inter- 
pretation they  adopted,  with  this  addition, 
that  the  proclamation  of  Messiahship,  to 
which  Jesus  had  looked  forward,  they  held 
to  have  been  given  in  the  Resurrection.  "Born 
of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh, 
he  was  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power,  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead"  (Rom.  1:3,4). 
After  his  Ascension  they  momentarily  ex- 
pected his  return  with  the  angelic  hosts  to 
set  up  his  earthly  kingdom,  which  should  be 
of  Jews  and  ruled  hy  Jews,  but  jor  all  men 
who  cared  to  come  in  and  submit  themselves 
to  Jewish  Law. 

b.  Pauline  Christology.  Paul  adopted  the  idea 
of  the  Palestinian  Christians,  except  that  his 
Messiah  had  less  of  earth  and  more  of  heaven. 
The  drama  of  redemption  he  transferred 
from  earth  to  heaven.  The  Kingdom  was  of 
and  by,  as  well  as  for,  all  men.  A  place 
therein  was  assured  to  Jew  and  Gentile, 
alike,  by  Faith  and  not  by  the  Law.  This 
Kingdom  becomes  in  PauPs  thought  the 
Church,  which  is  an  organism,  the  living 
body  of  Christ  (Disc.  XVIII).  To  Paul  the 
Messiah  partakes  in  some  way  of  the  nature 
of  God;  but  he  does  not  attempt  to  define 
this  relation.  Some  of  his  language  is  sus- 
ceptible of  an  Arian  interpretation.  In  his 
later  writings   (e.  g.  Colossians)     he  adopts 


64  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

the  Logos  theory  in  all  but  name.  That  the- 
ory, originating  in  the  Stoic  philosophy,  was 
developed  by  Philo,  an  Alexandrian  Jew 
(about  20  B.  C.  to  54  A.  D.)  He  attempted 
to  explain  the  problem  of  evil  by  supposing 
the  world  to  have  been  created,  not  directly 
by  God,  but  through  the  Word  (Adyos)  which 
emanated  from  God.  A  similar  doctrine 
was  also  current  among  the  Palestinian 
Rabbis,  in  which  they  gave  the  Word  the  con- 
notation of  the  self-expression  of  Deity. 

c.  Johannine  Christology.  Building  on  Paul, 
John  develops  the  relationship  of  Christ  to 
the  Father  by  a  further  development  of  the 
Logos  theory.  John,  with  Philo,  affirms,  "In 
the  beginning  was  the  Word  and  the  Word 
was  with  God."  But  John  adds,  "and  the 
Word  was  God.... and  the  Word  hecame 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us."  The  Logos  of 
Philo  was  neither  God  nor  man.  The  Logos 
of  John  was  both,  thereby  being  a  real  Me- 
diator. 

d.  The  problem  of  the  two  natures.  Neither 
Paul  nor  John  explain  how  Jesus  could  be 
both  really  God  and  really  Man.  From  the 
second  century  attempts  were  made  at  so- 
lution. Gnostics  and  others  considered  his 
manhood  unreal;  and  Nestorians  and  others, 
his  Godhead.  Others  held  that  he  was  part 
of  the  time  man  and  part  of  the  time  God. 
Arius  taught  that  the  divine  nature  of  Christ 
was  not  God,  but  a  being  like  God.  The  ortho- 
dox Church  finally  contented  itself  with  the 
affirmation  that  he  had  the  two  natures,  yet 
in  one  ego  or  self,  without  attempting  to  ra- 
tionalize their  relationship  further. 


WHAT  THINK  YE  OF  CHRIST  65 

3.  Christology  an  attempt  to  formulate  the  relig- 
ious experience  as  to  Jesus. 

This  bit  of  history  shows  that  the  Christology  of 
the  Church  was  not  taught  it  by  Jesus,  although  his 
life  furnished  the  data  from  which  it  was  developed. 
Nor  did  it  flash  forth  in  a  burst  of  revelation.  But 
it  was  laboriously  worked  out  in  order  to  answer  the 
question,  "What  think  ye  of  Christ?"  Considering 
Jesus, — what  he  did,  what  he  said,  how  he  lived, — 
his  followers  asked  themselves,  "How  shall  we  ac- 
count for  this  life?  Though  born  of  woman,  of  mind 
and  body  such  as  ours  and  subject  to  our  infirmities ; 
yet  never  man  spoke  as  he  spoke,  never  man  lived  so 
close  to  God,  or  brought  others  so  close  to  God,  never 
man  so  convicted  us  of  sin,  never  man  so  conquered 
death.  Can  we  say  that  such  a  life  was  merely  hu- 
man?" The  Christology  of  the  Church  was  the  at- 
tempt to  answer  this  problem.  Can  we,  with  all 
these  things  in  mind,  and  with  the  additional  knowl- 
edge which  they  did  not  have,  of  the  tremendous 
influence  of  this  life  upon  history,  can  we  answer 
otherwise  than  as  the  Church  has  answered? 

4.  Suggested  explanation  of  the  two  natures. 

While  the  Church  has  never  set  forth  a  for- 
mula or  dogma  expressing  the  relationship  of  the 
two  natures  in  detail,  it  has  permitted  individuals 
to  make  the  attempt.  Perhaps,  therefore,  a  few 
suggestions  may  not  be  presumptuous. 

God,  in  what  I  have  termed  his  man-ward  aspect 
and  manner  of  functioning  (Disc.  XI),  is  conceived 
of  as  the  perfection  of  human  virtues:  perfect  love, 
perfect  justice,  perfect  mercy, — and  without  any  hu- 
man vices, — in  short,  an  ideal  human  nature. 

Hence,  we  conceive  of  God  as  actuating  all  good 
endeavors.    "All  good  gifts  and  all  perfect  gifts  are 


0)6  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

from  above."    All  noble  deeds  are,  hence,  in  a  sense 
the  acts  of  God. 

God,  also,  inspires  all  high  and  noble  thoughts. 
Said  Kepler,  as  he  contemplated  his  theory  of  the 
motion  of  the  stars,  "I  am  thinking  the  thoughts  of 
God  after  him".  All  prophetic  utterances  are  in  a 
sense  the  words  of  God. 

When  the  good  man  acts  and  the  prophet  speaks, 
it  is  in  a  sense  God  who  acts  and  speaks.  Yet  the 
good  man  and  the  prophet  "see  as  through  a  glass, 
darkly".  Their  imperfect  humanity  obstructs  the 
divine  activity  and  refracts  and  colors  the  divine 
message.  This  distortion  varies.  Each  of  us 
has  times  of  transparency  and  times  of  opacity. 
Most  of  us  are  in  general  sadly  opaque. 

Jesus,  alone,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  his  hu- 
manity was  perfect,  was  at  all  times  perfectly  trans- 
parent to  the  divine  influence.  He  might  at  any 
time  have  sinned,  but  in  fact  never  did.  Jesus 
never  willed  other  than  the  will  of  God,  and  therein 
lay  his  point  of  contact  with  the  Divine.  In  him  at 
all  times  God  acted  and  spoke.  In  him  we  behold 
God. 

The  distinction  between  the  two  natures  in  Jesus 
is,  rather,  a  distinction  in  our  own  point  of  view. 
In  his  manward  aspect  he  manifested  manhood  per- 
fectly, and  not  merely  a  being  like  man ;  in  his  God- 
ward  aspect  he  manifested  God  perfectly,  and  not 
merely  a  being  like  God. 

But  it  will  be  said,  wherein,  then,  is  the  person- 
ality of  Jesus  unique?  Is  not  the  difference  between 
his  personality  and  ours  one  of  degree  merely  and 
not  of  kind, — quantitative  rather  than  qualitative? 
I  answer  that  the  difference  is  both  of  degree  and  of 
kind.  The  distinction  belongs  to  the  philosophy  of 
a  bygone  day.    Modern  science  and  philosophy  are 


WHAT  THINK  YE  OF  CHRIST  67 

coming  to  agree  that  all  difference  is  quaDtitative. 
A  microscopic  increase  or  decrease  in  the  secretion 
of  a  ductless  gland  spells  idiocy.  An  almost  im- 
perceptible variation  in  the  structure  of  brain  and 
nerve  differentiates  the  mental  processes  of  men  and 
monkeys.  Yet,  surely  the  differences  between  seer 
and  idiot,  man  and  monkey,  are  also  qualitative. 

A  radio  receiving  instrument  that  is  only  approxi- 
mately in  tune  to  the  wave-length  transmitted  emits, 
at  best,  only  a  confused  buzzing;  when  the  tuning 
becomes  exactly  correct  the  message  suddenly  be- 
comes intelligible;  the  difference  is  qualitative.  So, 
too,  is  the  difference  between  perfection  and  any 
approach  to  it.  The  perfect  human  life,  alone,  is 
divine ;  and  that  life  Jesus,  alone,  has  lived. 

5.  Conclusion. 

Neither  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  nor  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Incarnation  can  be  laid  aside  as  non- 
essential, or  quietly  consigned  to  oblivion,  without 
changing  Christianity  to  something  else.  To  apol- 
ogize for  or  belittle  them  means  to  apologize  for  our 
religion.  Nor  need  we  apologize.  The  dogma  of  the 
Trinity  keeps  before  our  minds  the  three-fold  ac- 
tivity and  being  of  God,  as  both  transcendent,  im- 
manent and  humanistic,  and  saves  us  from  the  pan- 
theism of  Buddhism  and  the  austerity  of  Judaism 
(Disc.  XI).  The  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  re- 
minds us  that  God  not  only  may  express,  but  has 
expressed,  himself  in  terms  of  perfect  human  nature. 
It  forever  prevents  the  divorce  of  religion  from 
ethics  and  saves  us  from  the  immoralities  of  the 
Greek  religions. 

Other  religions  possess  ethical  codes  as  lofty  as 
ours  and  have  organizations,  rituals,  and  rites  anal- 
ogous to  ours.     But  none  has  so  brought  God  to 


68  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

man  and  raised  man  to  God, — has  so  made  easy  the 
approach  to  God,  which  is  the  purpose  of  religion 
(Disc.  I), — as  has  Christianity.  Christianity  has, 
also,  in  its  idea  of  the  Church  as  the  extension  of 
the  Incarnation,  included  and  perfected  the  corpor- 
ate element  which  found  its  place  in  all  primitive 
religions,  and  without  which  the  religion  of  the  in- 
dividual becomes  self -centered  (Disc.  XVIII). 


DISCUSSION  XIV. 

THE  JUDGING  GOD. 

1.  Factors  in  human  conduct. 

a.  Heredity.  Each  human  organism  contains 
certain  capacities  and  certain  limitations 
which  it  cannot  transcend.  The  criminal 
and  the  saint  are  largely  born,  not  made. 
Much  crime  is  due  to  inherent  criminal  ten- 
dencies. Like  insanity  and  feeble-mindedness, 
such  tendencies  are  mental  derangements  or 
insufficiencies  and  are  largely  the  result  of 
bodily  derangements,  such  as  malformation 
of  organs,  or  abnormal  secretions  in  the 
ductless  glands.  We  cannot  gather  grapes 
from  thorns. 

b.  Environment.  Within  the  limits  set  by  hered- 
ity human  conduct  is  powerfully  modified 
by  environment, — including  food,  shelter, 
associations,  education.  "As  the  twig  is  bent, 
the  tree's  inclined.'' 

Problem:  If  man  is  the  creature  of  his  heredity 
and  environment,  why  should  God  hold  him  to 
account? 

2.  Moral  responsibility. 

a.  The  question  of  moral  freedom  lies  at  the 
basis  of  all  systems  of  ethics  except  the  util- 
itarian. Answered  in  the  negative  all  the 
glory  of  sacrifice  departs;  the  soldier  dying 


70  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

for  his  country,  the  martyr  for  his  faith,  are 
mere  puppets. 

b.  As  stated  in  the  discussion  on  Freedom  of 
the  Will,  we  are  justified  in  holding  that 
each  man  has  at  every  moment  a  "zone  of 
freedom,"  a  real  choice  between  alternatives. 
What  these  alteratives  shall  be  is  determined 
by  our  past, — heredity,  environment,  past 
conduct.  (See  Disc.  VII  and  the  notes  on 
that  discussion  in  Part  III.) 

c.  By  deliberate  and  consistent  choice  of  alter- 
natives we  gradually  shift  our  "zone  of  free- 
dom" either  for  better  or  worse.  We  are 
morally  responsible  for  the  use  which  we 
make  of  our  "zone  of  freedom". 

3.  Conscience. 

Conscience  is  the  inherent  sense  for  right,  the 
urge  which  impels  us  to  ask  the  question,  "Ought 
I  to  do  this?"  Conscience  does  not  answer  this 
question,  but  leaves  it  to  the  intellect.  Conscience 
is,  to  be  sure,  absolute  in  that  in  all  stages  of  human 
development  it  has  impelled  man  to  act  in  accor- 
dance with  his  fundamental  senses,  such  as  for  love, 
justice,  and  reverence.  But  what  conduct  these 
senses  may  demand  of  us  has  evolved  with  our  evolv- 
ing social  relations.  In  any  particular  case  the 
judgment  as  to  what  course  of  action  is  right  under 
the  circumstances  is  worked  out  by  the  intellect. 
The  judgment  of  the  intellect  is  conditioned  by 
heredity,  environment,  and  past  conduct.  The 
taboo  of  the  African  savage  and  the  Code  of  Justin- 
ian are  both  answers  to  the  same  question.  When 
the  intellect  has  formed  its  judgment  of  right  and 
wrong,  conscience  again  steps  in  and  impels  us  to 
carry  it  out,  or  makes  us  uncomfortable  if  we  do  not 


THE  JUDGING  GOD  71 

do  SO.  Conscience  is  the  bailiff,  who  brings  the 
parties  litigant  before  the  bar  of  the  intellect  and 
enforces  its  judgment  when  made  (Disc.  IV  and 
essay,  The  Grammar  of  Theology,  in  Part  II). 

4.  Sin. 

a.  Subjectively,  sin  is  the  determination  to  act 
contrary  to  conscience,  to  violate  the  sense 
for  right,  or  to  fail  to  act  up  to  one's  oppor- 
tunities ;  it  is  the  deliberate  shutting  oneself 
off  from  God. 

b.  Objectively,  sin  is  the  doing  of  some  act  in 
violation  of  one's  sense  for  right,  when  the 
alternative  lies  within  the  "zone  of  freedom." 

c.  From  the  viewpoint  of  anthropology  the  ca- 
pacity for  sin  is  a  development  from  primitive 
innocence,  a  necessary  stage  in  the  progress 
from  un-morality  to  morality. 

5.  Punishment  for  sin. 

a.  Subjective,  i.  The  deliberate  choice  of  the 
lower  of  two  alternatives  within  the  zone  of 
freedom  shifts  that  zone  lower  and  makes 
it  harder  to  choose  the  higher  alternative 
the  next  time.  ii.  The  deliberate  violation 
of  the  sense  for  right  causes  discomfort,  re- 
morse, iii.  Deliberate  shutting  oneself  off 
from  God  makes  it  harder  to  get  into  com- 
munion with  him.  iv.  Good  habits  free  the 
will,  because  the  habit  makes  the  minutiae 
automatic  and  frees  the  conscious  mind  for 
higher  things.  A  good  habit  does  away  with 
alternate  judgments  of  right  and  wrong 
which  w^e  pronounce  on  our  actions.  When 
the  conduct  is  alternating  between  two 
courses  attention  is  centered  upon  the  con- 
flict, and  since  the  will  is  closely  allied  with 


72  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

attention,  it,  too,  is  involved  in  the  conflict. 
Hence  an  evil  habit  enslaves  the  will. 

b.  Objective.  Action  taken  against  the  will 
of  God  (i.  e.,  the  inherent  tendency  of  the  uni- 
verse) sets  the  whole  force  of  the  universe 
against  the  sinner.  The  universe  is  continu- 
ally sloughing  off  that  which  runs  counter 
to  the  course  of  evolution. 

c.  Punishment  for  sin  is  not  imposed  arbitra- 
rily, or  externally,  but  is  a  "function,'^  or  re- 
sult, of  the  sin  itself.  It  is  imposed  by  the 
sinner  upon  himself.  The  judgment  on  a 
man  is  the  resultant  of  his  acts  of  choice  pro- 
duced to  infinity.  The  effect  increases  in 
geometrical  ratio,  unless  checked. 

6.  Salvation. 

Salvation  is  such  a  way  of  life  as  permits  the 
normal  functioning  of  the  individual,  the  coordina- 
tion and  legitimate  functioning  of  all  his  "senses'\ 
Such  a  functioning  does  away  with  all  conflict  be- 
tween his  various  tendencies,  abolishes  "complexes'' 
(in  the  Freudian  sense),  results  in  a  unified  person- 
ality, and  sets  the  individual  free  to  give  the  best 
that  is  in  him  to  the  service  of  the  Community. 
Since  our  "senses"  include  the  sense  for  love,  for 
reverence,  and  for  activity,  our  salvation  is  not  com- 
plete unless  it  includes  satisfaction  of  these  senses, 
which  satisfaction  can  only  be  attained  through  par- 
ticipation in,  and  service  for,  the  Beloved  Commu- 
nity. (See  Koyce,  Problem  of  Christianity ;  also  Disc. 
XVIII.)  In  this  way,  and  not  in  any  arbitrary,  or 
wooden  manner,  participation  in  the  Beloved  Com- 
munity is  essential  to  complete  salvation.  It  does  not 
follow  that  those  who  have  fallen  short  of  achieving 
this  ideal  when  death  overtakes  them  are  to  be  for- 


THE  JUDGING  GOD  73 

ever  excluded  from  the  Beloved  Community.  We  may 
not  doubt  that  their  eyes  will  then  be  opened  and 
that  they  will  yet  make  their  way  into  the  Blessed 
Company  of  All  Faithful  People. 

7.  Heaven  and  Hell. 

Since  the  life  hereafter  is  but  a  continuation  of 
the  present  life,  the  consequences  of  sin  carry  over 
into  the  next  world.  Both  heaven  and  hell  have  their 
beginnings  here.  Since,  however,  the  opportunity 
for  communion  with  God  appears  to  be  greater  in 
the  next  world  than  here,  so  the  power  to  appre- 
ciate him,  or  the  lack  of  it,  will  be  more  keenly  felt. 
The  sharpest  sting  of  hell,  both  in  this  world  and  the 
next,  is  unpreparedness  in  the  face  of  opportunity. 
"Of  all  sad  words  of  tongue  or  pen,  the  saddest 
are  these,  ^It  might  have  been'." 

Since  our  sense  for  justice  demands  that  punish- 
ment be  remedial,  we  may  hope  for  a  chance  of 
amendment  in  the  hereafter;  but  it  will  involve  a 
painful  regaining  of  the  ground  lost  on  earth.  Heaven 
we  regard,  not  as  a  cessation  of  struggle,  but  as  a 
removal  of  the  present  hindrances  to  achievement 
(Disc.  XV.,  §3).  Heaven  and  hell  inevitably  follow 
from  the  freedom  of  the  will.  If  I  am  really  free,  I 
have  power  to  turn  in  either  direction. 

8.  Human  criminal  law. 

a.  Objects. 

i.  Corrective.  Reformation  of  the  individual, 
ii.  Protective.  Deterring  the  individual  from 
the  commission  of  other  crimes  by  confine- 
ment. Deterring  others  from  the  commission 
of  crime  by  the  example  and  fear  of  pun- 
ishment. 

b.  Method  of  accomplishment. 
Imprisonment  and   probationary   oversight. 


74  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

Both  are  necessary  and  are  effective  within 
limits.  There  is  a  mistaken  tendency  among 
theoretical  criminologists  to  belittle  the  cor- 
rective and  deterrent  effect  of  punishment. 
One  school  would  turn  the  prisons  into 
schools;  the  other  into  homes  for  the  feeble- 
minded. To  a  limited  extent  both  are  right ; 
but  the  element  of  punishment  must  be  pre- 
served. 

c.  Limitations. 

i.  No  human  tribunal  can  assess  moral  re- 
sponsibility, since  it  cannot  know  all  the 
facts  nor  determine  in  how  far  the  criminal 
act  was  the  result  of  heredity  or  environment. 
"Judge  not  that  ye  be  not  judged." 

ii.  Even  in  its  judgment  as  to  proper  meas- 
ures for  the  protection  of  society  it  is  liable 
to  err. 

iii.  Criminal  law  has  not  addressed  itself  to 
the  problem  of  raising  the  zone  of  freedom 
by  remedying  maladjustments  of  heredity 
and  environment. 

iv.  It  cannot  appeal  to  the  religious  nature, 
which  furnishes  the  most  powerful  incentive 
to  amendment.  It  cannot  bring  the  sinner 
to  God,  as  does  the  Church  in  teaching  and 
sacraments.  This  element  the  Church  must 
supply. 

V .  The  consequences  of  an  act  of  condemna- 
tion are  to  definitely  consign  the  condemned 
to  a  pigeon-hole,  largely  artificial,  since 
"there  is  so  much  bad  in  the  best  of  us,''  and 
to  cramp  the  soul  of  the  condemned  in  the 
narrow  quarters  of  his  own  misdeeds,  there- 


THE  JUDGING  GOD  75 

by  preventing,  as  far  as  we  can,  his  rehabili- 
tation. 

vi.  This  is  not  God's  way  of  dealing  with  us. 
Parable  of  the  Unmerciful  Servant  and  of 
the  Wheat  and  Tares.  His  way  is  to  treat 
us  sinners  as  potential  saints. 

vii.  Judgment  is  not  creative,  but  loving  hope 
is  creative,  it  works, — the  man  tends  to  be- 
come what  we  expect  him  to  be. 

viii.  Conclusion.  While  criminal  law  is 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  society,  it  has 
very  limited  power  for  good.  What  it  lacks 
the  Church  is  in  duty  bound  to  supply. 


DISCUSSION  XV. 

THE  ATONING  GOD. 

Problem:     If  God  is  both  loving  and  omnipotent, 
why  does  He  permit  sin,  pain,  and  sorrow? 

1.  The  answer  of  philosophy. 

a.  Utilitarian.  All  ideals  are  the  products  of 
self-interest  and  what  we  call  sin  is  merely 
violation  of  standards  set  up  by  society  for 
its  self -protection. 

b.  Epicurean.  The  ideal  is  to  obtain  the 
greatest  enjoyment;  and  hence  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  sin,  and  we  have  it  in  our 
power  to  abolish  sorrow  from  our  lives. 

c.  Stoic.  The  ideal  is  duty.  We  must  accept 
pain  and  sorrow,  without  attempting  to  ex- 
plain them,  and,  by  adherence  to  duty,  rise 
above  them. 

d.  Skeptic.  We  must  give  up  the  problem  as 
forever  insoluble. 

e.  Atheistic.  Since  sin,  pain,  and  suffering  are 
very  real,  we  must  conclude  that  there  is  no 
God. 

f .  Pessimistic.  There  is  no  problem,  because  the 
world  is  inherently  bad, — whence  pain,  sin,  and 
sorrow  are  quite  to  be  expected. 

g.  Buddhistic.  Since  sin,  pain,  and  suffering 
arise  out  of  human  desires,  we  should  strive 


TEE  ATONING  GOD  77 

to  conquer  our  desires.  Perfect  bliss,  Nirvana, 
will  be  attained  when  we  shall  have  banished 
desire. 

h.  None  of  these  answers  satisfies  us.  Each 
violates  one  or  more  of  our  inherent  tenden- 
cies, or  senses.  We  instinctively  refuse  to 
accept  such  a  universe  as  they  present.  Fi- 
nally, none  has  worked  when  put  to  the  test. 
None  furnishes  a  sufficient  motive  for  con- 
duct. 

2.  The  answer  of  Christian  Science. 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  sin,  pain,  or  sorrow; 
our  experience  of  them  is  mere  delusion.  This  sys- 
tem is  faulty  both  in  theory  and  in  practice.  In 
theory,  because  if  sin,  pain,  and  sorrow  are  merely 
mental  phenomena,  then  so  also  are  goodness,  plea- 
sure, and  happiness.  Psychology  has  demonstrated 
that  an  excess  of  any  pleasurable  sensation  becomes 
pain.  Excess  of  any  virtue  is  a  vice.  Furthermore, 
this  philosophy  is  an  attempt  to  gratify  our  sense  for 
justice  at  the  expense  of  our  sense  for  rationality, 
which  is  as  false  as  the  other  extreme  (Essay,  The 
Grammar  of  Theology ,  in  Part  II).  This  theory 
tends  toward  a  supercilious  attitude  toward  those 
in  poverty,  pain,  or  sin.  It  also  disregards  totally 
the  corporate  element  in  religion.  Therefore,  in 
practice,  while  the  Christian  Scientists  have  done 
well  to  emphasize  the  possibilities  of  the  mystical 
life,  they  have  given  a  cold  shoulder  to  charitable 
enterprises  and  movements  for  social  and  industrial 
betterment  (Disc.  XVI,  §6d). 

3.  The  answer  of  Christianity. 

Pain,  sorrow,  and  even  sin  are  necessary  evils  in 
a  universe  of  progress  and  of  moral  values.  The 
problem  finds  its  solution  in  the  Life  Eternal,  which 


7S  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

furnishes  an  opportunity  to  progress  beyond  them, 
and  in  the  Incarnation  and  Atonement,  which  fur- 
nish the  means  to  do  so.    This  we  will  try  to  show. 

a.  Pain  and  sorrow.  Progress  is  purposeful 
movement,  not  running  around  in  circles. 
Since  it  is  a  movement,  it  involves  struggle. 
Since  it  is  purposeful,  it  involves  an  ideal. 
Now,  unless  there  were  inequalities,  we  could 
form  no  conception  of  an  ideal.  Unless 
we  can  see  a  better,  we  cannot  con- 
ceive of  a  best.  For  example,  some  men  have 
better  eyesight  than  others,  and  hence  we  can 
form  the  conception  of  vision  more  keen  than 
any  of  which  we  know,  in  short,  perfect  vi- 
sion; and  we  all  wish  that  we  might  more 
nearly  approximate  that  ideal.  But  no  one 
wishes  that  he  might  see  out  of  the  back  of 
his  head, — although  that  would  be  a  very 
useful  accomplishment, — because  there  are 
none  of  us  who  can  see  any  better  in  that 
direction  than  any  of  the  rest  of  us.  If  we 
were  all  on  a  dead  level,  whether  intellectu- 
ally or  morally,  we  could  form  no  conception 
of  intellectual  or  moral  progress.  But  in- 
equality necessarily  involves  a  lesser  good, 
a  certain  amount  of  pain  and  suffering  for 
those  who  lag  behind.  Pain  is  the  concomi- 
tant of  a  losing  fight.  For  example,  the  body 
is  continually  beset  by  the  bacteria  of  dis- 
ease, it  continually  struggles.  So  long  as  it 
is  winning  there  is  no  pain.  But  the  moment 
the  bacteria  get  the  upper  hand  pain  ensues, — 
a  cry  for  reinforcements.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  organism  is  completely  defeated, 
pain  ceases.  Therefore,  struggle  is  an  inev- 
itable concomitant  of  progress,  and  pain  is 


THE  ATONING  QOD  79 

an  inevitable  concomitant,  not  of  all  struggle, 
but  of  struggle  against  too  great  odds,  an  evi- 
dence of  partial,  but  not  total,  defeat.  Pain 
and  sorrow  are  neither  good  nor  evil  in  them- 
selves, but  only  as  we  react  to  them, — evil,  if 
we  lie  down  under  them ;  good,  if  we  use  them 
as  warnings  and  agencies  to  train  and  harden 
us  for  further  struggle.  A  life  of  ease  pre- 
sents no  attraction,— our  sense  for  activity 
demands  that  we  should  be  ceaselessly  striv- 
ing and  achieving.  (Essay  on  The  Grammar 
of  Theology.    Part  II.) 

b.  Sin.  This  presents  a  graver  problem.  Yet 
its  existence  does  not  stamp  the  world  as  evil. 
Sin  is  the  deliberate  choice  of  the  lower  of 
two  alternatives  presented  to  consciousness 
(Disc.  XIV) .  Sin  is,  therefore,  the  inevitable 
concomitant  of  free-will.  Now,  free-will  is 
the  permanent  possibility  of  doing  good. 
Without  it  there  could  be  neither  sin  nor 
righteousness.  You  cannot  eat  your  cake 
and  have  it.  A  world  of  free-will  without  sin 
is  not  only  impossible,  but  unimaginable. 

c.  The  solution.  Are  not  pain,  sorrow,  and  sin 
too  great  a  price  to  pay  for  progress  and  free- 
will? Does  the  joy  of  those  who  succeed 
compensate  for  the  tears  of  those  who  fail? 
Would  not  a  world  of  sinless  stagnation  be 
preferable?  The  Buddhist  says,  yes.  But,  be- 
fore you  agree  with  him,  remember  that  the 
heaven  of  the  Buddhist  must  by  inevitable 
logic  be  Nirvana.  Yet,  would  pain,  sorrow, 
even  sin,  be  too  great  a  price  to  pay,  if  it 
lay  within  the  power  of  each  of  us  to  progress 
beyond  them?  To  this  you  will  reply  that 
in  this  brief  life  it  most  certainly  does  not 


80  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

lie  within  our  power  to  rid  ourselves  of  pain, 
sorrow,  and  sin,  and  that  our  wills  are  so 
fast  bound  by  heredity  and  environment  that 
even  an  eternity  were  of  no  avail.  Yet,  what 
if  a  way  were  found  to  overcome  these  hin- 
drances and  to  set  each  one  of  us,  who  will, 
upon  the  path  of  progress?  This  is  the  so- 
lution of  Christianity, — an  Eternal  Life  in 
which  to  grow  and  an  Atonement  which 
furnishes  the  means  to  do  so. 

Problem:      How   can  the   death  of   Christ   effect 
atonement? 

4.  Atonement. 

a.  Meaning  of  the  word.  Atonement  does  not 
mean  buying  off  an  angry  God,  or  changing 
God's  intention.  Atonement  is  at-one-ment, 
rapprochement,  reconciliation  with  God,  a 
realignment  of  the  human  will  so  as  to  be 
in  harmony  with  the  divine. 

b.  The  religious  experience  of  atonement.  The 
necessity  for  atonement,  the  feeling  that  all 
is  not  right  between  the  self  and  God  and 
that  some  outside  agency  is  needed  to  adjust 
this  relationship,  is  an  element  in  religious 
experience  well-nigh  universal.  There  is  also 
a  very  widespread  conception  that  this  ad- 
justment can  only  take  place  through  the  un- 
merited suffering  of  the  outside  agent.  We 
find  this  idea  cropping  up  in  the  most  di- 
verse religious  systems.  Among  the  Hebrews 
the  agency  was  an  animal  that  was  sacrificed. 
In  the  various  "mystery"  religions  it  was  the 
head  of  the  religion :  Serapis,  Mithra,  Dio- 
nysos,  or  Orpheus.  The  wide  spread  and 
persistence  of  this  idea  is  evidence  that  it 


THE  ATONING  QOD  81 

contained  an  element  of  objective  reality. 
Now,  in  the  early  days  of  Christianity  the 
adherents  of  these  religions  came  over  to 
Christianity  almost  en  masse,  which  indicated 
that,  though  their  former  religion  taught 
them  the  aspiration  for  atonement,  it  did  not 
give  them  the  reality.  During  the  entire  his- 
tory of  Christianity  it  is  a  fact  of  universal 
Christian  religious  experience  that  men  who 
felt  themselves  fast  bound  in  sin  and  misery 
have  been  set  free  by  putting  themselves 
in  effective  relation  to  Christ.  The  fact 
of  such  transformation  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned. It  was  this  experience  in  Paul  which 
made  him  a  convert  to  Christianity,  and  the 
fact  of  Atonement  is  the  very  center  of  his 
theology.  This  same  experience  has  come  to 
such  men  as  Augustine,  Francis  of  Assisi, 
John  Bunyan,  and  in  lesser  degree  to  all 
Christians. 

c.  Theories  of  Atonement.  Efforts  to  explain 
the  religious  experience,  to  rationalize  it,  have 
been  made  all  through  Christian  history. 
But  no  such  theories  have  been  regarded  as 
de  fide.  Orthodox  theology  simply  affirms 
the  fact,  and  says  that  in  some  way  Christ's 
life,  death,  and  resurrection  (not  his  death 
alone)  avail  to  effect  atonement  with  God. 

5.  A  suggested  explanation  of  the  fact. 

a.  The  life  of  Christ,  by  showing  us  that  God's 
nature  may  be  expressed  in  terms  of  human 
nature,  brings  God  down  to  us,  and,  by  fur- 
nishing us  a  pattern  of  right  living,  tends  to 
raise  us  to  God.  But  his  life  would  not  have 
been  a  perfect  pattern  had  he  not  undergone 


82  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

all  our  pains  and  temptations,  even  to  death 
itself.  The  higher  personality  must  always 
undergo  suffering,  sympathy^  with  the  lower, 
must  enter  into  his  sufferings,  in  order  to 
raise  him. 

b.  God  has  always  offered  and  does  offer  at-one- 
ment  with  himself,  whereby  if  we  would  ac- 
cept the  offer,  we  might  overcome  sin.  But 
man  often  wills  not  to  accept  the  offer.  Man's 
will  needs  outside  help  to  break  through  the 
crust,  which  is  the  result  of  his  heredity  or 
environment,  or  of  his  own  wilful  misdeeds. 
This  help  he  finds  sometimes  in  a  friend,  some- 
times in  a  great  shock,  or  sorrow.  Now,  in 
Jesus  we  find  the  supreme  friend  and  in  his 
death  the  supreme  tragedy. 

c.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  individual  in 
relation  to  society.  (See  Royce,  Problem  of 
Christianity,  Lectures  V  and  VI.)  A  sinful 
act  always  has  an  element  of  self-indulgence 
at  the  expense  of  the  group  (family.  Church, 
city,  or  State)  to  which  the  sinner  belongs  and 
into  whose  life  he  has  entered, — his  Beloved 
Community.  He  has  set  back  its  well-being, 
has  proved  a  traitor.  The  Community  may 
not  know  of  his  act ;  but  he  knows  it  and  con- 
demns himself.  In  the  effort  to  make  amends 
for  his  wrong  he  may  perform  many  good 
acts,  but  after  all  they  are  no  more  than  his 
duty  and  they  can  never  undo  the  effect  of 
his  traitorous  act.  Even  though  the  Com- 
munity may  forgive  him,  he  does  not  forgive 
himself.  His  remorse  can  only  cease,  if, 
somehow,  his  traitorous  act  should,  in  spite 
of  evil  intention,  turn  out  to  be  for  advan- 
tage to  his  Community.    The  sinner  now  is 


THE  ATONING  GOD  83 

brought  to  know  the  life  and  death  of  Christ. 
He  perceives  that  his  sin  is  of  a  piece  with 
that  of  the  men  who  nailed  Him  to  the  cross, 
and  so  that  his  sin  had  a  part  in  it.  But  the 
life  and  death  of  Christ  have  been  a  blessing 
to  his  Beloved  Community.  So  the  repentant 
sinner  at  last  is  freed  of  his  remorse  and  lifts 
up  his  heart  to  God.  It  was  precisely  this 
that  led  Augustine  to  exclaim  of  his  own  sin- 
ful past,  0  felix  culpa! 

d.  All  of  these  elements,  doubtless,  enter  into 
the  fact  of  the  Atonement.  Yet  all  of  them 
together  seem  inadequate  to  explain  the  facts 
of  Christian  experience,  the  immeasurable 
redemptive  value  of  the  life  and  death  of 
Christ.  Tremendous  are  the  consequences  of 
sacrifice,  of  unmerited  suffering  and  death. 
Arnold  von  Winkelried,  gathering  to  his 
heart  the  Austrian  lances,  opened  the  road 
to  liberty  for  the  Swiss.  John  Brown's  soul 
marched  from  Harper's  Ferry  to  Appomat- 
tox. Edith  Cavell  and  the  victims  of  the 
Lusitania  vanquished  Germany.  The  blood 
of  the  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the  Church. 
H^owever  it  may  operate,  whether  through 
subjective  influence  alone,  or  whether  per- 
chance through  unknown  forces  which  it  re- 
leases into  activity,  this  much  we  know,  that 
vicarious  suffering  does  redeem ;  and  therein 
lies  the  Christian's  answer  to  the  riddle  of 
the  universe. 


DISCUSSION  XVI. 

THE  LOVING  GOD. 

Problem:  Is  intercommunion  possible  between 
God  and  man;  and  how  can  God  answer  prayer 
without  violating  natural  laws? 

1.  Importajiee  of  problem. 

This  is  the  vital  question  in  religion.  Unless  it  can 
be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  the  question  of  the 
existence  of  God  is  merely  academic  and  has  no 
practical  bearing.  It  was  the  hunger  for  communi- 
cation with  God  which  accounted  in  large  part  for 
the  rapid  spread  of  Christianity  in  the  first  two 
centuries.  The  Koman  world,  which  had  sought  this 
end  through  the  "mystery"  religions  in  vain,  found 
it  in  Christianity.  The  burden  of  Paul's  message  is 
that  unity  is  established  between  God  and  the 
believer.  Today  we  see  an  exactly  parallel  move- 
ment in  the  rapid  spread  of  Christian  Science,  New 
Thought,  and  other  cults;  due,  perhaps,  to  the  fail- 
ure of  the  orthodox  churches  to  bring  out  the  mes- 
sage of  Paul. 

2.  Possibility  of  intercommunion  from  the  view- 
point of  science. 

Psychology  teaches  us  that  the  human  mind  is 
a  mountain,  most  of  which  is  submerged  in  uncon- 
sciousness. Between  the  Conscious  and  the  Sub- 
conscious there  is  constant  intercourse.  The  Con- 
scious continually  sends  down  mental  images  and 


THE  LOVING  GOD  85 

their  accompanying  emotions,  to  be  stored  in  the 
almost  perfect  memory  of  the  Subconscious.  To  it, 
also,  come  a  multitude  of  sense  impressions  which 
are  never  apprehended  by  the  Conscious.  The  Sub- 
conscious governs  all  reflex  and  habitual  bodily  pro- 
cesses. Man  never  becomes  truly  proficient  in  any 
manual  or  mental  work  until  it  is  largely  controlled 
by  the  Subconscious.  The  Subconscious  is  con- 
stantly sending  up  vague,  forgotten  memories,  col- 
ored by  emotion,  when  these  are  suggested  by  some 
mental  image  in  Consciousness.  Hence  most  of  our 
emotions  and  desires  and  all  the  mechanisms  which 
condition  conduct  arise  in  the  Subconscious.  There 
genius  has  its  birth.  Through  it  even  the  bodily 
processes  are  powerfully  influenced. 

It  is  coming  to  be  believed  that  human  minds 
may  communicate  subconsciously  (  telepathy ) . 
Whether  this  is  true  or  not,  there  is  no  scientific 
reason  to  deny  that  the  Divine  Spirit  may  so  com- 
municate, if  we  put  ourselves  in  an  attitude  to  re- 
ceive the  message.  Whether  or  not  such  communica- 
tion does  take  place  ought  to  be  susceptible  of 
proof  out  of  the  facts  of  religious  experience. 

3.  Theology  affirms  that  the  proof  is  to  be  found 
in  the  answer  to  prayer  and  in  the  mystical  appre- 
hension of  God  by  the  soul.    Consider  these  in  turn. 

4.  Prayer. 

a.  Theory  of  prayer.  We  are  not  to  suppose 
that  prayer  changes  the  purpose  of  God ;  but 
that  he  has  ordained  prayer  as  one  of  the 
train  of  causes  leading  to  the  accomplishment 
of  that  purpose.  The  answer  to  prayer  is 
not  a  thwarting  of  natural  law. 

b.  Effect  of  prayer,  subjective.  It  is  a  fact 
of  universal  experience  that  prayer  has  a 
beneficial   effect   upon    the   person   praying, 


86  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

sustains  and  strengthens  his  good  intentions, 
and  heartens  him  when  discouraged.  It 
brings  into  play  the  powerful  forces  latent 
in  the  Subconscious.  The  materialist  will 
say  that  this  effect  comes  from  within  the 
Self  by  auto-suggestion.  But  the  evidence 
seems  to  show  that  this  explanation  will  not 
account  for  the  facts.  ( See  Essay,  The  Gram- 
mar of  Theology,  in  Part  II.)  Rather,  we  may 
affirm  that,  when  the  human  spirit  opens  it- 
self to  the  divine  influence,  a  powerful  ele- 
ment for  good  comes  into  the  Subconscious 
from  above. 

c.  Effect  of  prayer,  objective.  It  is,  for  the 
reasons  stated  above  (§2),  not  in  conflict  with 
science  to  hold  that  prayer  opens  an  avenue 
likewise  for  the  operation  of  the  divine  power 
in  the  souls  of  other  men,  and  hence  influ- 
ences their  conduct.  If  we  may  communi- 
cate subconsciously  by  telepathy  with  other 
men,  this  would  almost  necessarily  follow. 
The  saints  of  all  ages  testify  to  the  objective 
efficacy  of  prayer  and  modern  instances 
abound. 
5.  Christian  Mysticism. 

a.  Theory  of  mysticism.  Prayer  is  talking  to 
God.  Mysticism  is  letting  God  talk  to  us. 
If  God  hears  us,  it  ought  to  be  possible  for 
us  to  hear  God.  Here,  again,  there  is  no 
scientific  reason  why  this  should  be  impos- 
sible. The  communication,  if  it  exists,  may  be 
understood  as  taking  place  through  the  Sub- 
conscious. Whether  or  not  such  communi- 
cation exists  ought  to  be  ascertainable  from 
the  facts  of  religious  experience. 

b.  The  mystical  experience, — subjective  reality. 


THE  LOVINO  GOD  87 

Jesus  was  in  constant  communication  with 
the   Father   and   taught   his   followers   that 
they  might  be  also.     The  early  Church  was 
filled  with  persons  who  testified  to  this  ex- 
perience.   Unusual  persons,  making  unusual 
effort,  have,  in  all  ages,  achieved  a  vivid  ex- 
perience   of     communication    with     God, — 
sometimes    auditory    or    visual,    sometimes 
merely   an   indescribable   awareness  of   His 
Presence:  Paul,  John  of  Patmos,  Plotinus, 
Augustine,   Theresa,   Joan   of   Arc,  Juliana 
of  jSIorwich,  Francis  of  Assisi,  Suso,  Sweden- 
borg.  Cotton  Mather,  George  Fox  and  other 
Quakers,  Jonathan  Edwards.     This  ecstatic 
mystical  experience  is  not  peculiar  to  Chris- 
tianity, but  has  occurred  in  much  the  same 
form     among     Hindus,     Mohammedans, — in 
short  in  almost  all  religions.     The  faithful 
in  all  ages  have  felt  this  Presence,  though 
to  less  marked  degree.    The  subjective  reality 
of  their  experiences  cannot  be  questioned. 
But  materialists  affirm  that  they  were  self- 
induced  delusions.     Is  this  explanation  ten- 
able? 
c.  The   mystical   experience — objective   reality. 
These  experiences  appear  to  have  objective 
reality,  for  the  following  reasons : 
i.   They  bear  for  the  experiencer  a  certitude 
as  great  as  sensational  experience  and  have 
the  same  quality, — he  does  not  question  their 
objectivity. 

ii.  They  are  orderly  and  self-consistent 
and  are  not  irrational,  like  a  dream  or  a  de- 
lusion. 

iii.  Although  such  experiences  have  occurred 
to  men  of  all  times,  races,  and  religions,  their 


88  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

content  (what  they  appeared  to  tell  of  the 
unseen  world)  has  been  strikingly  similar, 
iv.  The  great  mystics  have  not  been  unbal- 
anced visionaries,  but  have  often  been  persons 
of  keen  and  analytical  minds  (Paul,  Augus- 
tine, Thomas  Aquinas),  or  of  unusual  execu- 
tive ability  (Francis  of  Assisi,  Theresa,  Ig- 
natius Loyola,  Joan  of  Arc), — persons  very 
unlikely  to  suffer  delusions. 
V.  Such  experiences,  in  a  less  marked  degree, 
have  come  to  most  of  those  who  have  put 
themselves  in  an  attitude  to  receive  them, 
vi.  The  results  of  such  experiences  have  been 
almost  invariably  good.  Far  from  creating 
introspective  dreamers,  they  seem  to  result 
in  increased  sympathy  and  efficiency.  The 
great  mystics  whom  I  have  named  have  been 
great  largely  because  of  their  experiences. 
The  profligate  Augustine  and  Francis  be- 
come saints,  the  peasant  Joan  becomes  a 
great  general.  All  these  thought  that  they 
had  experienced  God,  and  the  result  was  as  if 
they  had  done  so.  There  is  no  more  reason 
for  doubting  the  objective  verity  of  their 
experiences  than  that  of  any  experience  of 
the  senses. 

6.  Manner  of  praying  effectively  and  of  achiev- 
ing communion  with  God,  as  described  by 
the  mystics. 

a.  A  right  will.  In  normal  persons  this  is  of 
gradual  growth.  In  persons  where  the  lower 
nature  is  in  control  a  violent  emotional  storm 
(conversion)  is  sometimes  required  to  put 
the  higher  will  in  control.  The  attitude  of 
both  prayer  and  contemplation  must  be  "Thy 
will  be  done". 


THE  LOVING  GOD  89 

b.  Contemplation.  The  practice  of  quiet  wait- 
ing for  God,  getting  rid  of  any  distracting 
thoughts,  so  as  to  leave  an  avenue  for  God 
to  enter,  is  essential. 

c.  Asceticism.  The  great  mystics  have  practiced 
this  rigorously.  A  certain  amount  is  needed 
by  us  all. 

d.  Sacraments.  All  the  Catholic  mystics  make 
use  of  the  sacraments.  The  Quakers,  and  of 
course  non-Christian  mystics,  do  not.  This 
indicates  that  sacraments  are  not  essential 
to  this  experience;  although,  for  the  Quak- 
ers, the  Silent  Meeting  has  practically  sacra- 
mental value.  It  should  be  noted,  however, 
that  the  Catholic  mystics  have  possessed 
greater  practical  efficiency.  It  would  appear 
that  the  sacraments  and  the  notion  of  the  so- 
cial nature  of  religion  which  they  connote, — 
the  corporate  system  of  which  they  are  a 
part, — act  as  a  fly-wheel  to  restrain  unregu- 
lated mysticism  and  make  it  an  engine  of  ef- 
ficiency. Mysticism  among  the  Buddhists,  the 
Sufis,  or  those  Christians  who  have  not  de- 
veloped a  sense  of  the  corporate  nature  of 
religion,  tends  to  take  the  form  of  quietism. 
At  any  rate,  it  takes  more  than  ordinary 
spirituality  to  be  a  good  Quaker.  For  most 
of  us,  immersed  in  material  things,  some  ma- 
terial aid  is  felt  to  be  required  to  bring  about 
a  realization  of  the  presence  of  God.  In  short, 
the  Church  and  sacraments  conduce  to  a 
normal  life;  they  tend  to  make  the  mystic 
practical  and  the  practical  man  mystical. 
To  anyone  who  takes  part  in  public  worship, 
and  especially  in  a  sacrament,  with  a  belief 
in  its  objective  efficacy,  there  comes  a  special 


90  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

sense  of  the  presence  of  God  that  steals  away 
his  troubles  and  perplexities  and  makes  the 
rough  places  plain.  So  that,  to  him,  such 
worship  becomes  as  necessary  to  health  of 
mind  as  is  regular  exercise  to  health  of  body. 

7.  Spiritual  healing. 

a.  It  is  a  fact  of  religious  experience  that  health 
of  mind,  or  soul,  and  health  of  body  are  in- 
terrelated, and  that  an  agency  which  pro- 
motes a  healthy  mind,  will,  through  the  Sub- 
conscious, benefit  the  body.  If  man  may  put 
himself  in  touch  with  God  to  the  betterment 
of  his  mind,  or  soul,  such  relationship  must 
necessarily  tend  to  heal  the  body,  also. 

b.  It  is  a  fact  of  religious  experience  that  this 
result  does  take  place,  as  attested  by  spiritual 
healing  in  all  ages;  Jesus,  the  Apostles, 
Francis  of  Assisi,  shrines,  relics,  Christian 
Science,  Emmanuel  Movement. 

c.  The  methods  used  and  theories  advanced  vary 
greatly.  Often  no  conscious  appeal  is  made 
to  the  religious  nature.  But  the  result  is  the 
same  in  all  cases:  the  sick  soul  is  cleared  of 
the  obstacles  that  prevent  the  divine  power 
from  flooding  in. 

8.  Conclusion. 

Belief  in  the  objective  efficacy  of  prayer  and  af- 
firmance of  the  objective  verity  of  direct  experiences 
of  God  are  not  contradicted  by  science ;  they  are  sub- 
stantiated by  religious  experience ;  and  they  do  pow- 
erfully conduce  to  a  higher  life.  The  love  of  God 
is  constantly  awaiting  the  opportunity  to  express 
itself  in  human  lives;  and  it  is  a  fact  of  religious 
experience  that  we  may  put  ourselves  in  a  position 
to  receive  it  and  may  thereby  bring  health  to  our 


THE  LOVING  OOD  91 

souls  and  bodies  and  profoundly  influence  other 
men.  This  is  the  reward  of  religion.  Thus  does  it 
achieve  its  aim  of  establishing  effective  relations 
with  God  (Disc.  I).  Without  this  it  becomes  a  cheer- 
less system  of  stoical  ethics.  Why  should  we  put 
off  to  the  next  world  what  we  may  measurably  enjoy 
in  this?  It  is  the  supreme  function  of  religion  and 
of  the  Church  today  to  say  to  those  who  have  "lain 
down"  under  sin,  pain,  sorrow,  or  economic  pres- 
sure,— and  this  includes  us  all  at  times, — in  the 
words  of  Peter  and  John :  "Silver  and  gold  have  I 
none;  but  what  I  have  that  give  I  unto  thee;  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  stand  up  and 
walk." 


DISCUSSION  XVII. 

THE  LIFE  WORTH  WHILE. 

(Christian  Ethics.) 

1.  What  is  the  chief  end  of  man?  This  age-old 
question  has  received  various  answers: 

a.  Epicurean.    The  well-being  of  self  (selfish). 

b.  Stoic.    The  performance  of  duty  (cheerless). 

c.  Utilitarian.     The  advancement  of  the  race 
(materialistic). 

In  this  lecture  we  consider  the  answer  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

2.  It  is  frequently  asserted  that  the  entire  message 
of  Jesus  consisted  in  a  few  precepts  for  the  con- 
duct of  the  individual  in  private  and  toward  his  fel- 
lows and  that  other  elements  in  the  teaching  and 
practice  of  the  Church  are  additions  and  perversions. 

Problem:     If  I  deal  justly  and  practice  charity, 
have  I  not  fulfilled  my  whole  duty? 

3.  Historically  considered  this  view  is  entirely  er- 
roneous. Jesus'  message  was  social,  not  individual. 
As  is  stated  in  Discussion  XII,  he  continually  pro- 
claimed that  his  mission  was  to  prepare  the  world 
(or  perhaps  the  Jewish  Nation)  for  the  Messianic 
Kingdom.  His  ethics  were  not  merely  moral  pre- 
cepts, but  the  constitution  for  the  Coming  State. 

4.  Fundamental  law  of  Christian  Ethics:  "Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord,  thy  God,  with  all  thy  heart  and 


THE  LIFE  WORTH  WHILE  98 

with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all  thy  strength  and  with 
all  thy  mind  J  and  thy  neigJibor  as  thyself.'^ 

a.  Underlying  principle,  not  the  Law,  but  Love 
(Disc.  XIV  §8). 

b.  Objects  of  duty :  God,  my  neighbor  and  my- 
self. 

c.  Spheres  of  activity:  emotional  (soul  and 
heart ) ,  intellectual  (  mind  ) ,  practical 
(strength),  (See  Disc.  I,  §3). 

5.  Duty  toward  God :  To  worship  and  adore  and 
do  the  will  of  God  out  of  love  for  him,  and  not  pri- 
marily for  the  good  of  others,  or  our  own  salvation. 

6.  Duty  toward  my  neighbor:  To  labor  in  love 
for  the  material  and  spiritual  well-being  of  others, 
doing  unto  them  as  we  would  they  should  do  unto 
us,  regarding  ourselves  as  members  one  of  another 
and  all  as  joined  into  a  Beloved  Community  (Disc. 
XVIII). 

7.  Duty  toward  ourselves:  To  make  the  best 
possible  use  of  our  bodies,  minds,  and  spirits  for 
development  both  here  and  hereafter. 

8.  Results  of  overemphasis  upon  one  duty. 

a.  Toward  God.  The  men  of  the  Middle  Ages 
built  great  cathedrals  and  sacrificed  them- 
selves in  the  Crusades  and  in  the  monastic 
orders;  but  were  careless  of  social  and  indi- 
vidual morality. 

b.  Toward  self.  The  evangelical  reformers 
made  salvation  an  individual  matter.  They 
minimized  objective  worship  on  the  one  hand 
and  neglected  the  well-being  of  humanity  on 
the  other. 

c.  Toward  my  neighbor.  The  present  age  builds 
hospitals    and    social    settlements;    but    va- 


94  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

cates  its  churches  and  considers  personal  re- 
ligion old-fashioned, 
d.  As  to  each  of  these  duties  our  motto  should 
be,  "This  ought  ye  to  have  done  and  not  to 
leave  the  other  undone'\  To  perform  one 
duty  completely  involves  performance  of  the 
others  also. 

9.  Spheres  of  activity. 
We  cannot  completely  love  or  serve  God,  or  our 
neighbor,  or  ourselves,  without  doing  so  with  our 
whole  being,  emotional,  intellectual  and  practical. 
Our  love,  reverence,  and  service  must  be  heartfelt, 
intelligent,  and  active,  or  it  is  incomplete  (Disc. 
I   53). 

10.  The  reward  of  life  is  more  life,  wider  oppor- 
tunity for  development  and  usefulness  here  and 
hereafter. 


DISCUSSION  XVIII. 

THE  IDEA  OF  A  CHURCH. 

1.  Introduction. 

No  philosophy  of  Christianity  is  complete  with- 
out taking  account  of  the  idea  of  a  Church,  for  that 
institution  in  one  form  or  another  is  universal  in 
Christendom.  We  find  today  three  opinions  about 
a  Church.  Some  regard  it  as  useless.  Those  who 
regard  it  as  valuable  have  two  opinions  as  to  its  na- 
ture. The  purpose  of  this  lecture  is  to  evaluate  the 
idea  of  a  Church  in  the  light  of  history  and  of 
present  experience. 

2.  The  organic  idea  of  the  Church. 

The  Church  is  a  divine  organism,  contemplated 
by  Christ  and  developed  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Spirit,  possessing  and  administering  peculiar  chan- 
nels of  intercourse  between  God  and  the  individual. 
We  may  call  this  the  organic  conception. 

3.  The  aggregate  idea  of  the  Church. 

The  Church  in  the  broad  sense  is  the  collective 
name  for  all  those  who  profess  belief  in  Christ  and 
attempt  to  practice  a  moral  life.  In  the  particular 
sense  a  Church  is  a  voluntary  association  of  indi- 
vidual Christians,  uniting  for  their  spiritual  culture, 
the  evangelization  of  other  men,  and  the  propagation 
of  certain  doctrines.  There  is  no  moral  obligation  to 
belong  to  a  Church.  If  the  Church  purports  to  be 
more  than  this,  it  is  a  hindrance  to  the  individual, 


96  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

interposes  itself  between  man  and  God,  and  repre- 
sents a  corruption  of  the  purely  spiritual  religion 
taught  by  Jesus.  We  may  call  this  the  aggregate 
conception. 

Problem:  Why  should  I  join  the  Church?  If  I 
live  a  Christian  life,  is  that  not  all  that  is  re- 
quired? 

4.  The  corporate  religious  experience. 

a.  Primitive  corporate  religion.  The  earliest 
form  of  religion  was  tribal  worship.  In  fact 
some  students  of  comparative  religion  con- 
tend that  the  act  of  tribal  worship  preceded 
and  produced  the  individual  religious  con- 
sciousness. (Pratt,  The  Religious  Con- 
sciousness,  Chap.  I.)  At  any  rate,  the  tribe 
was  the  unit  and  not  the  individual. 

b.  Hebrew  corporate  religion.  Probably,  at  first, 
tribal.  Gradually  the  national  sanctuary  at 
Jerusalem  eclipsed  the  local  ^'high  places" 
and  the  nation  became  the  religious  unit. 
The  individual  had  religious  significance  pri- 
marily as  a  member  of  the  Jewish  nation. 
Every  Jew  was  ipso  facto  3l  member  of  the 
religious  community. 

c.  Greek  corporate  religion.  In  classical  times 
the  religious  unit  was  the  tribe  (</)rA^).  At 

the  time  of  Christ  the  real  religious  con- 
sciousness of  the  Greeks  was  centered  in  the 
"mystery"  religions.  Here  for  the  first  time 
in  the  history  of  Europe  religion  was  dis- 
sociated from  the  tribe  or  nation.  The  po- 
litical organism  was  replaced  by  a  purely  re- 
ligious organism.  Those  initiated  into  the 
mysteries  were  regarded  as  in  touch  with,  or 
incorporated  into,  the  mystical  body  of  the 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  CHURCH  97 

god.    They  attained  immortal  life  by  partak- 
ing of  his  immortality. 

d.  Primitive  Christian  corporate  religion. 
Jesus  built  upon  the  Hebrew  idea.  He  planned 
to  reform  and  extend  the  Jewish  Church- 
State  ( Disc.  XI ) .  His  ethical  precepts  were 
the  constitution  for  the  coming  Kingdom. 
The  Greek  converts  brought  in  the  idea  of 
the  mystical  body.  The  acceptance  of  this 
conception  was  furthered  by  the  rejection  of 
Christianity  by  the  Jews.  The  result  was  a 
fusion  of  the  two  ideas  into  the  Christian 
idea  of  the  Church  as  the  Body  of  Christ,  the 
extension  of  the  Incarnation,  and  the  suc- 
cessor to  the  Hebrew  Church-State.  This 
Body  first  called  itself  The  Community 
(  a  Koivw^t) .  It  would  never  have  occurred 
to  any  early  believer  that  he  might  be  a  Chris- 
tian and  not  a  "member"  of  the  Church. 

e.  Later  development  of  Christian  corporate  re- 
ligion. The  first  self-conscious  act  of  the  new 
Community,  as  distinct  from  the  Jewish  na- 
tion, was  the  Council  at  Jerusalem  (about 
A.  D.  46).  From  about  that  time  the  Com- 
munity began  calling  itself  Church  (eKKXrjma) . 
This  was  several  years  before  any  of 
Paul's  epistles  were  written  and  about  twenty 
years  before  the  first  Gospel  (Mark). 

About  the  development  of  the  ministry 
there  is  great  uncertainty.  (See  Disc  XX.) 
Of  one  thing  we  may  be  certain,  however; 
the  change,  if  any,  in  the  form  of  government 
involved  no  change  in  the  idea  of  the  nature 
of  the  Church.  For,  had  such  a  change 
been  involved,  we  should  have  had  evidences 
of  it  in  the  writings  of  the  period,  as  we  have 


08  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

of  the  controversy  involving  the  extension  of 
the  Church  to  the  Gentiles. 

The  testimony  of  such  writings  as  we 
have  is  all  in  support  of  the  organic  theory. 
''For  as  the  body  is  one,"  says  Paul,  "and 
hath  many  members,  and  all  members  of 
the  body,  being  many,  are  one  body;  so  also 
is  Christ.  For  in  one  spirit  were  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body Now  ye  are  the  body  of 

Christ  and  severally  members  thereof."  The 
same  idea  is  expressed  by  John  in  the  simile 
of  the  vine  and  the  branches.  And  in  the 
Shepherd  of  Hernias  (early  second  century), 
we  read,  ''The  Church  was  created  before 
all  things ;  therefore  is  she  aged ;  and  for  her 
sake  the  world  was  framed." 

The  name  Catholic  came  into  use  in  the 
first  half  of  the  second  century ;  but  there  was 
no  substantial  change  in  the  conception  of  the 
Church  from  the  Council  at  Jerusalem  to 
the  Diet  of  Worms.  Since  the  word  Catholic 
has  been  in  use  so  long  in  connection  with 
Churches  which  maintain  the  organic  theory 
of  the  Church,  that  theory  is  commonly 
called  the  Catholic  (but  not  Roman  Catholic, 
see  §4g)  theory, 
f.  Effect  of  the  Reformation  on  Christian  cor- 
porate religion.  Luther  set  out,  not  to  found 
a  new  Church,  but  to  reform  the  old  one.  He 
strove  for  years  to  give  his  followers  bishops. 
In  Sweden  his  purpose  was  accomplished 
and  the  Church  of  that  country  is  Catholic 
in  theory  and  government  and  Lutheran  in 
theology.  In  England  the  Church  remained 
Catholic  in  theory  and  government  and  com- 
posite in  theology.    It  has  called  itself  Prot- 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  CHURCH  99 

estant  because  it  agreed  with  the  Protestant 
Churches  in  opposing  certain  doctrinal, 
ethical,  and  governmental  features  in  the 
Koman  Church.  The  Calvinistic  reformers 
originally  held  the  Catholic  idea  of  the 
Church,  but  contended  that  the  government 
should  be  through  presbyters  and  not  bish- 
ops,— or  in  other  words  that  every  clergyman 
should  exercise  the  functions  of  bishop  and 
presbyter.  However,  the  strictly  Protestant 
Churches  soon  receded  from  the  "organic" 
idea  of  the  Church  to  the  "aggregate"  idea 
(§2). 

g.  Roman  theory  (Formulated  by  the  Council 
of  Trent,  1563  A.D.,  and  later) .  The  Church, 
as  a  body,  is  the  hierarchy ;  the  laity  are  not 
conceived  as  entering  into  its  life,  but  rather 
as  receiving  grace  from  it.  The  Roman 
Church,  also,  regards  communion  with  the  See 
of  Rome  as  essential  to  Catholicity. 

h.  Eastern  and  Episcopal  theory.  The  Eastern 
Churches  (Greek,  Russian,  etc.)  and  the 
Episcopal  Churches  (English,  American,  and 
Colonial)  adhere  to  the  Catholic  idea.  They 
regard  the  Church  as  consisting  of  both 
clergy  and  laity.  They  hold  the  Catholic 
Church  to  consist  in  all  those  national 
Churches  which  adhere  to  the  Catholic  idea 
of  Church,  sacrament,  and  doctrine,  and  safe- 
guard the  same  through  government  by  bish- 
ops of  apostolic  succession. 

.  Value  of  the  organic  idea  of  the  Church. 

a.  Historical.  As  stated  above,  the  organic  idea 
of  religion  is  the  primitive  conception  the 
world  over  and  has  persisted  in  one  form  or 
other  in  most  religions.    In  Christendom  this 


100  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

idea  was  universal  until  after  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  is  still  held  by  the  great  majority  of 
Christians.  The  persistence  of  the  idea  dem- 
onstrates its  very  great  survival  value  and  in- 
dicates its  validity.  The  Church  after  twenty 
centuries  is  here  today  and  must  be  accounted 
for. 

b.  Psychological  basis,  i.  The  sense  for  love 
and  for  loyalty  is  inherent  and  demands  sat- 
isfaction (Essay,  The  Grammar  of  Theology, 
Part  II).  Man  is  a  social  animal.  This 
social  tendency  he  satisfies  by  grouping  him- 
self with  others  into  a  Community.  Every 
man  is  better  for  being  a  loyal  member  of  ^a 
lodge,  athletic  team,  college,  or  city.  He  is 
more  himself,  because  he  has  satisfied  all 
his  inherent  tendencies  (Royce,  The  Philoso- 
phy of  Loyalty).  This  tendency  seeks  satis- 
faction in  corporate  religion;  and  any  relig- 
ion which  leaves  this  element  unsatisfied 
is  unnatural  (Disc.  I),  ii.  The  Beloved  Com- 
munity creates  an  atmosphere  hostile  to  ma- 
terialism and  favorable  to  spirituality.  The 
unconscious  influence  of  the  thought  and 
ideals  of  the  Community  upon  the  individual 
are  very  strong,  iii.  Man  demands  a  tangible 
object  of  loyalty.  Christ  furnished  this  ob- 
ject while  on  earth  and  the  Beloved  Commu- 
nity does  so  as  the  extension  of  his  life 
(Royce,  The  ProMem  of  Christianity). 

c.  Practical,  i.  The  Church  fosters  regular 
habits  of  worship,  ii.  It  counteracts  the 
tendency  to  look  upon  religion  as  a  matter 
of  individual  salvation  and  furthers  the  social 
gospel.  Sin  becomes  treason  to  the  Beloved 
Community,    iii.  In  accomplishing  results  it 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  CHURCH  101 

presents  the  advantage  of  the  army  over  the 
mob. 

6.  The  Beloved  Community  as  the  Body  of  Christ. 

a.  The  Beloved  Community  is  an  organism  in 
a  real  sense  and  not  by  mere  analogy,  i.  The 
individual,  like  the  cell,  has  his  individual 
life,  but  also  imparts  something  to  the  whole 
and  receives  something  from  it.  No  man,  or 
cell,  liveth  unto  himself ;  and  no  man,  or  cell, 
dieth  unto  himself,  ii.  The  normal  function- 
ing of  the  individual  and  of  the  cell  are  neces- 
sary to  the  health  of  the  whole,  iii.  The  life 
of  the  whole  is  built  out  of  the  life  of  the  cells 
and  individuals  that  compose  it,  yet  it  tran- 
scends them.  A  body  is  more  than  the  sum 
total  of  the  cells  which  compose  it. 

b.  This  organism  is  the  Body  of  Christ,  i.  The 
Church  carries  on  the  work  of  Christ  (^'Go  ye 
into  all  the  world  and  proclaim  the  Good 
Tidings  to  all  nations").  It  is  the  extension 
of  the  Incarnation,  ii.  The  Church  has  all 
the  power  of  Christ.  He  empowered  his 
apostles  to  heal  the  sick,  pronounce  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  and  to  do  ^'greater  works  than 
I  do". 

7.  The  Church  and  the  individual. 

a.  The  function  of  the  Church.  The  Church  life  is 
not  superposed  on  the  individual  religious 
life,  it  is  that  life  upon  its  social  side.  The 
Beloved  Community  is  the  embodiment  of  the 
social  religious  life  of  the  members.  Its  field 
is  parallel  to  the  private  religious  life.  In 
the  private  religious  life  of  the  members  it 
aims  merely  to  foster  right  relations  with 
God.    A  high  personal  morality  and  religious 


102  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

feeling  is  possible  without  membership  in  the 
Beloved  Community;  but  it  is  incomplete 
and  is  difficult  to  maintain. 

b.  Limitations.  The  Beloved  Community  does 
not,  or  should  not,  intervene  between  the  indi- 
vidual and  God  in  the  private  religious  life. 
The  individual  has  complete  freedom  of  con- 
science and  opinion,  although  the  Community 
may  properly,  for  its  protection,  regulate  the 
outward  acts  and  expressions  of  its  members. 
The  Roman  Church  overrides  these  limita- 
tions; but  Rome  is  no  more  an  argument 
against  the  idea  of  a  Church  than  was  Prussia 
an  argument  against  the  idea  of  a  State.  The 
Episcopal  and  Anglican  Church  is  Catholic 
in  its  insistence  on  the  idea  of  the  Church 
as  a  divine  organism;  it  is  Protestant  in 
its  insistence  on  the  right  of  private  judgment 
and  individual  religious  life.  The  balance 
must  be  maintained,  however  difficult  that 
may  be,  since  both  elements  are  demanded  by 
our  religious  nature. 

8.  Conclusion. 

On  the  practical  side,  if  it  be  true  that  our  duty 
to  God  demands  adoration,  then  it  is  a  moral  duty 
to  make  that  adoration  in  public.  And  if  our  neigh- 
bor and  society  in  general  need  religion,  then  it  is 
our  duty  to  belong  to  and  actively  further  the  only 
institution  engaged  in  propagating  it, — quite  apart 
from  any  feeling  which  we  may  have  that  church-go- 
ing does  not  in  our  particular  case  seem  indispens- 
ible  to  religious  growth,  or  that  "we  can  be  just  as 
good  without  going  to  Church". 

It  is  true  that  the  individual  may,  and  often  does, 
achieve  a  very  high  morality  and  a  very  close  ap- 
proach to   God  without  belonging  to  the  Beloved 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  CHURCH  103 

Community.  But  he  is  still  not  in  the  fullest  re- 
lation to  God,  because  he  has  left  out  the  social  side 
of  his  nature.  He  who  loses  his  life  shall  find  it. 
One  cannot  fully  live  the  life  worth  while,  cannot 
fully  realize  his  possibilities,  without  losing  his 
life  in  the  life  of  the  Beloved  Community.  (Royce, 
Problem  of  Christianity;  also  supra,  Disc.  XIV,  §6, 
and  Disc.  XVII.)  The  Beloved  Community  is  not 
superposed  on  the  individual,  or  interposed  between 
the  individual  and  God,  it  is  the  individual  upon  his 
social-religious  side. 


DISCUSSION  XIX. 

THE    IDEA  OF  A  SACRAMENT. 

1.  Value  of  public  worship. 

People  go  to  church  for  two  reasons,  both  legiti- 
mate: To  produce  an  effect  in  themselves  (subjec- 
tive) and  to  worship  God  (objective). 

a.  Subjective  value. 

Psychological  benefit  to  the  worshiper  is 
sought  and  obtained  by  sermons  and  hymns 
and  the  atmosphere  of  devotion  (pure  sub- 
jective). It  is  also  sought  and  obtained  by 
prayer  to  God  for  strength  and  guidance  (ob- 
jective-subjective j  . 

b.  Objective  value. 

The  worshiper,  also,  goes  to  church  for  the 
purpose  of  adoration  and  to  petition  for  the 
accomplishment  of  objects  desired. 

c.  Conclusion. 

The  second  motive  is  higher  than  the  first, 
because  more  unselfish.  Furthermore,  the 
subjective  result  cannot  properly  be  obtained 
unless  the  primary  purpose  of  the  worshiper 
is  objective  (Pratt,  Religious  Consciousness , 
pp.  298-307).  Theoretically,  both  of  these 
results  could  be  obtained  through  private 
devotions;  but  instinctively  men,  even  those 
who  do  not  hold  the  organic  theory  of  the 
Church,  realize  that  these  purposes  can  be 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  SACRAMENT  105 

better  accomplished  in  company  with  their 
fellows.  A  Church  is  a  good  place  in  which 
to  pray. 

2.  Sacraments.  In  Christianity  certain  particular 
acts  of  public  worship,  regarded  as  peculiarly  sol- 
emn, are  called  sacraments.  There  are  two  main 
opinions  as  to  their  nature  and  value.  In  this  lec- 
ture we  shall  evaluate  these  ideas  in  the  light  of 
the  religious  experience  of  the  past  and  the  present. 

3.  The  ''efficient"  idea  of  a  sacrament. 

A  sacrament  is  an  "efficient"  symbol,  an  outward 
and  visible  sign  whereby  the  divine  influence  is  medi- 
ated to  the  individual,  so  as  to  result  in  some  special 
religious  value.  In  this  definition  the  phrases  "di- 
vine influence"  and  "religious  value"  are  intended 
as  the  equivalent  of  the  objective  and  subjective  con- 
notations of  the  phrase  "spiritual  grace."  (See 
Webster  and  Standard  Dictionaries,  titles  Sacra- 
ment and  Grace.) 

4.  The  "representative"  idea  of  a  sacrament. 

A  sacrament  is  a  "representative"  symbol,  a  me- 
morial, a  representation  or  a  ratiflcation  by  the 
worshiper  of  a  relationship  between  God  and  the 
individual.  (See  Webster  and  Standard  Diction- 
aries, title  Sacrament.) 

Problem:     If  God  is  everywhere,  of  what  advan- 
tage is  a  Sacrament? 

5.  Sacramental  religious  experience. 

a.  Primitive  systems.  In  religions  of  the  Ruler 
God  type  (Disc.  VI)  the  means  of  atonement 
took  the  form  of  a  sacrifice,  a  propitiation. 
In  religions  of  the  Nature  God  type  it  took 
the  form  of  a  ceremony  whereby  the  believer 
was  restored  to  unity  with  the  divine  nature. 


106  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

These  rites  are  to  be  found  in  every  race  and 
time ;  they  are  co-extensive  with  religion  and 
are  always  the  function  of  corporate,  rather 
than  private,  religion. 

b.  Hebrew  sacrificial  religion.  The  classical 
Hebrew  religion  was  of  the  Ruler  God  type. 
Many,  though  not  all,  of  the  sacrifices  were 
for  atonement.  The  Hebrews  also  practised 
baptism  for  cleansing  from  sin,  perhaps  al- 
lied to  the  lustrations  for  purification  before 
sacrifice. 

c.  Greek  sacramental  religion.  The  Greek 
"mystery"  religions  were  of  the  Nature  God 
type.  The  ceremony  of  initiation  was  a  bath, 
whereby  the  believer  was  grafted  into  some 
sort  of  unity  with  the  deity.  Thereafter  he 
partook  from  time  to  time  of  ritual  meals  in 
which  it  was  conceived  that  he  drew  nourish- 
ment from  the  divine  life,  renewed  his  contact 
with  deity.  These  ceremonies  were  called 
"mysteries"    (Disc.  XV). 

d.  Primitive  Christian  Sacraments.  The  prim- 
itive Church  was  built  upon  the  sacraments. 
B.  W.  Bacon,  a  Protestant  and  somewhat 
radical  historical  student,  says,  in  Jesus  and 
Paul,  "This  ^gospel',  so  far  as  it  found  vis- 
ible expression,  was  embodied,  after  the  man- 
ner of  ancient  religion,  not  in  books  but  in 
symbolic  ritual.  Christianity  consisted  in 
the  ordinances  and  their  interpretation.  .  . 
The  Nazarenes,  or  Christians,  were  the  people 
who  practiced  the  rites  of  baptism  and  the 
Supper Such,  then,  was  the  true  ^begin- 
ning of  the  Gospel',  The  sacraments  came 
first,  the  literature  came  afterward.  It  grew 
up  around  the  sacraments,  interpreting  and 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  SACRAMENT  107 

enforcing  their  lessons.  The  first  disciples 
did  not  appeal,  as  we  do,  to  two  witnesses, 
the  Spirit  and  the  Word,  but  to  three:  the 
Spirit  outpoured  from  heaven,  and  the  water, 
and  the  blood."  In  these  sacraments  the 
Church  built  upon  both  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Greek  ideas.  Its  baptism  was  both  a  washing 
away  of  sin  (Hebrew)  and  a  new  birth  in  the 
Spirit  (Greek).  Its  Eucharist  was  both  a  re- 
presentation of,  thanksgiving  for,  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Cross  (Hebrew),  and  a  partaking  of 
the  divine  nature  (Greek), 
e.  Later  Christian  history.  The  theory  and 
practice  of  the  sacraments  underwent  (no 
change  until  about  1000  A.  D.  when  the  ma- 
terialistic doctrine  of  Eucharistic  Transub- 
stantiation  arose  in  the  West.  This  doctrine 
followed  from  a  crude  and  wooden  interpre- 
tation of  sacraments,  whereby  they  were  re- 
garded as  in  the  nature  of  magical  charms. 
In  reaction  from  this  view  Calvin  and 
Zwingli  enunciated  the  theory  which  I  have 
called  the  "representative"  theory  and  which 
obtains  in  most  Protestant  Churches.  The 
tendency  to  minimize  the  sacraments  was  ac- 
centuated by  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  Pre- 
destination, teaching  as  it  did  that  man's 
salvation  is  individual  and  that  nothing 
which  he  or  the  Community  can  do  will  alter 
his  destined  fate.  They  thus  became  of  little 
or  no  religious  significance  and  have  been 
almost  discontinued  in  some  churches. 
6.  Value  of  sacraments. 

a.  Historical.  The  early  origin  and  the  per- 
sistence of  the  sacramental  idea  demonstrates 
its    very    great    survival   value    and    points 


108  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

to  its  validity;  this  is  a  fact  of  religious  ex- 
perience that  demands  explanation. 

b.  Psychological.  The  consciousness  of  sin  and 
of  the  need  of  atonement  is  universal.  Man 
has  always  sought  a  means  of  achieving 
atonement  and  a  pledge  to  assure  him  there- 
of (Discs.  I  and  XV).  He  has  always  given 
expression  to  this  need  in  solemn  corporate 
acts.  Experience  shows  that  in  Churches 
where  the  sacraments  are  minimized,  all  pub- 
lic worship  tends  to  lose  its  objective  aspect 
and  comes  to  center  around  the  sermon. 
The  Church  tends  to  become  an  ethical  or  phi- 
lanthropic society  (Pratt,  Religious  Gon- 
sciouness.  pp.  298-307). 

c.  Practical.  Since  we  are  not  pure  spirit,  but 
have  material  bodies,  it  follows  that  we  al- 
ways use  material  means  for  producing  ma- 
terial results.  The  spoken  or  written  word, 
for  instance,  is  an  "efficient''  symbol,  or  ve- 
hicle, of  the  thought  conveyed.  So,  also,  is 
a  piece  of  music.  These  all  have  quasi-sac- 
ramental value.  A  sacrament  is  a  divine 
word,  or  means  of  communication.  The  mod- 
ern man,  immersed  in  material  things,  needs 
a  material  aid  to  get  out  of  this  environment 
and  to  find  "God  in  particular".  While  all 
acts  of  worship  have  quasi-sacramental  value, 
the  Church  has  restricted  the  use  of  the 
word  to  those  in  which  the  divine  element  is 
of  predominating  importance.  The  difference 
is  perhaps  one  of  degree ;  but  the  difference  is 
so  great  as  to  amount  to  a  difference  in  kind. 
(See  Disc  XIII,   §.) 

d.  Limitations.  A  sacrament  is  not  a  charm 
which   will   confer   a   benefit   regardless  of 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  SACRAMENT  109 

the  spirit  in  which  it  is  received.  A  right  at- 
titude and  intention  on  the  part  of  the  re- 
cipient is  absolutely  essential.  Otherwise 
sacramental  observance  would  be  magic. 
In  the  Eucharist  the  material  elements  are 
not  God,  but  are  means  by  which  God  is  made 
apparent  to  the  worshiper.  It  is  not  they, 
but  God,  who  is  worshiped.  Otherwise  such 
worship  becomes  idolatry.  Disregard  of 
these  limitations  has  often  led  to  grave 
abuses. 

7.  Baptism. 

This  is  the  sacrament  of  initiation  into  the 
Church,  thereby  putting  the  recipient  in  the  way 
to  receive  the  spiritual  grace  (i.  e.  psychological 
value)  coming  later  and  in  ever-increasing  measure 
through  participation  in  the  life  of  the  whole.  It 
is  a  birth  into  a  new  life  (regeneration).  Just  as 
the  new-born  babe  does  not  at  birth  come  into  fulness 
of  life,  so  baptism  is  merely  a  beginning, — a  promise 
of  grace  to  come.  It  has  the  additional  significance 
of  being  a  solemn  certification  by  the  Fellowship 
(Church)  that  it  agrees  to  receive  the  candidate  into 
its  body  "as  a  little  child". 

8.  The  Eucharist. 

In  this  sacrament  the  whole  Church  "shows 
forth"  the  death  on  the  Cross,  and  gives  thanks  for 
it  and  for  all  blessings.  In  Paul's  thought  it  is  the 
symbol  of  the  unity  of  the  Beloved  Community,  or 
rather  the  nexus  whereby  that  unity  is  achieved  and 
maintained.  Since  the  loaf, — the  body  of  Christ, — 
represents  the  Church,  the  worshiper,  by  partaking 
of  it,  in  a  very  real  way  partakes  of  the  common  life 
of  the  Church,  which  is  Christ  (I  Cor.  XI  and  XII). 
We  may  express  this  thought  in  modern  language  as 
follows:    If,   as   we   maintain,   there   is   help    and 


110  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

strength  for  the  individual  in  the  association  and 
life  of  the  Beloved  Community,  and  if  the  physical 
aspect  in  this  sacrament  opens  our  minds  (puts  us 
en  rapport,  so  to  speak)  to  that  influence,  then  it 
does  really  convey  to  us  a  share  therein.  The 
Church,  also,  affirms  that  Christ  is  really  present 
in  this  sacrament..  Now,  it  is  true  that  God  is 
present  everywhere;  but  he  is  not  present  for  us 
unless  we  perceive  him.  For  example,  if  you  and 
I  are  in  the  same  room  and  a  curtain  is  stretched 
between  us,  we  are  not  in  each  other's  presence.  So 
this  sacrament  draws  aside  the  curtain  between 
the  worshiper  and  God.  This  curtain  drawn  aside, 
the  worshiper  may,  and  does,  make  the  deepest  act 
of  adoration,  or  objective  worship,  because  in  this 
sacrament  he  approaches  spiritually  closest  to  God. 


DISCUSSION  XX. 

THE  IDEA  OF  A  MINISTRY. 

1.  Introduction. 

Like  Church  and  sacrament,  we  find  a  ministry 
throughout  Christendom;  and  this  fact  must  be 
taken  into  account.  Here  again  we  find  two  main 
ideas  as  to  the  office  of  a  minister;  and  it  is  the 
purpose  of  this  discussion  to  evaluate  them  in  the 
light  of  religious  experience. 

2.  The  "appointive"  idea  of  a  minister. 

A  minister  is  one  designated  by  the  people  as 
preacher  or  pastor;  and  ordination  is  the  official 
certification  that  he  is  fitted  and  authorized  for 
those  duties. 

3.  The  "priestly"  idea  of  a  minister. 

A  minister  is  one  set  apart  by  the  whole  Church 
to  constitute  the  organ  through  whom  it  represents 
God  to  man  and  man  to  God.  He  is  the  medium 
through  whom  the  corporate  worship  is  offered  to 
God  and  the  divine  influence  residing  in  the  whole 
organism  is  conferred  upon  the  individual.  This  is 
substantially  the  definition  of  a  priest  (Standard 
Dictionary) ;  and,  accordingly,  where  this  idea  ob- 
tains, the  minister  is  commonly  called  a  priest.  This 
theory  holds  that  the  Church,  as  a  body,  is  the  great 
Priest,  and  it  bestows  some  of  its  functions,  par- 
ticularly, upon  certain  men  in  the  sacrament  of  or- 
dination.   The  men  so  set  apart  perform  their  func- 


112  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

tions,  of  which  the  chief  is  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  not  as  individuals,  but  as  representa- 
tives of  the  entire  Church.  The  administration  of 
every  sacrament  is  the  corporate  act  of  the  whole 
Church. 

Problem:     Is   it  needful,   or   right,   that  any   one 
should  represent  God  to  me,  or  me  to  God? 

4.  Eeligious  experience  of  priesthood. 

a.  Primitive  priesthoods.  From  the  earliest 
times,  whenever  men  have  realized  the  cor- 
porate nature  of  religion  and  have  given  ex- 
pression to  it  in  solemn  corporate  acts, 
they  have  set  apart  certain  men  to  lead  in 
the  performance  of  such  acts. 

b.  Hebrew  priesthood.  The  priests,  an  heredi- 
tary caste,  offered  the  sacrifices  as  representa- 
tives of  the  whole  nation. 

c.  Classical  Greek  and  Latin  priesthood.  The 
same  idea  obtains  here.  The  chief  priest  was 
originally  the  king.  In  Athens  under  the 
republic  he  was  still  called  apx^^  jSaa-LXevs- 
In  the  "mystery"  religions  the  priesthood  was 
not  hereditary.  There  were  no  sacrifices^  but 
the  priest  led  the  mysteries. 

d.  Primitive  Christian.  The  name  priest  was 
not  at  first  used,  probably  because  the  new 
religion  wished  to  emphasize  its  abandon- 
ment of  the  Hebrew  idea  of  a  sacrificial 
priesthood.  The  manner  of  administering  the 
sacraments  in  the  first  century  is  uncertain. 
When  the  curtain  lifts  in  the  second  century 
we  find  Elders,  or  Presbyters,  performing 
this  function  and  corresponding  in  all  but 
name  with  the  sacramental  priesthood  of  the 
"mystery"  religions.    Whether  this  practice 


THE  IDEA   OF  A  MINISTRY  113 

obtained  from  the  first,  or  whether  originally, 
as  some  historians  conclude,  each  member 
of  the  congregation  in  turn  administered  the 
Eucharist,  is  in  controversy.  If  the  latter 
theory  be  true,  however,  it  is  not  true  to  say 
that  there  were  no  sacramental  priests. 
Rather,  all  were  priests  (''He  made  us  to  be 
a  kingdom,  to  be  priests  unto  his  God  and 
Father."  Rev.  1:6).  In  the  white  heat  of 
early  enthusiasm  the  Spirit  manifested  him- 
self in  all.  As  this  enthusiasm  cooled,  it  be- 
came necessary  for  the  Christian  Fellowship 
to  crystalize  and  apportion  its  functions  to 
stated  individuals.  The  name  priest  first 
came  into  use  in  the  third  century.  It  has 
continued  ever  since,  except  as  it  was  dropped 
by  the  Protestants  at  the  Reformation. 

e.  The  three-fold  ministry.  Deacons  were  insti- 
tuted in  apostolic  times  to  administer  the 
funds.  The  origin  of  diocesan  bishops  is  ob- 
scure. The  apostles  exercised  general  super- 
vision without  territorial  restriction.  In  the 
apostolic  age  the  words  Mshop  and  presby- 
ter were  practically  synonymous.  Whether 
diocesan  bishops  arose  through  designation 
by  the  apostles,  or  through  the  elevation  to 
primacy  of  one  member  in  the  several  boards 
of  presbyter-bishops,  is  debated.  Most  his- 
torians hold  the  latter  view.  The  question  is 
not  important;  in  either  case  the  three-fold 
ministry  developed  in  the  Church,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Spirit,  as  the  best  available 
means  for  conserving  and  imparting  the  cor- 
porate life,  and  has  so  continued  since.  At 
the  Reformation  the  reformers  in  all  the 
countries  except  England  and  Sweden  were 


114  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

obliged  to  do  without  bishops.  Protestant 
Churches  have  been  of  two  types  as  to  polity : 
the  presbyterian  type,  in  which  the  presbyter 
exercises  a  certain  amount  of  authority,  and 
the  congregational  type  in  which  the  minister 
is  merely  the  chosen  leader  of  the  congrega- 
tion. 

g.  Conclusion.  The  persistence  of  the  idea  of  a 
priesthood  in  all  religions  and  especially  in 
the  history  of  Christianity  indicates  that  this 
idea  has  survival  value  and  hence  finds  its 
basis  in  some  fundamental  principle  of  re- 
ligious experience. 

5.  Value  of  a  priesthood. 

a.  Individual.  Whenever,  by  example  or  pre- 
cept, we  endeavor  to  help  another,  or  show 
him  a  better  way,  we  are  performing  a 
priestly  act,  we  are  representing  God  to  man. 
Whenever  we  pray  for  another  we  are  repre- 
senting man  to  God.  Practically  all  of  our 
duties  upon  our  social-religious  side,  as 
members  of  the  Beloved  Community,  are,  or 
should  be,  priestly  duties.  Hence,  in  a  very 
real  sense  the  Church  is  a  community  of 
priests.  We  owe  most  of  the  good  that  is  in 
us  to  some  such  act  of  another.  We  instinc- 
tively crave  the  mediation  of  others,  the  cup 
of  cold  water  given  in  the  name  of  a  prophet. 

b.  Social.  A  priesthood  is  absolutely  essentia] 
to  an  organic  religion.  No  organism  can  ex- 
ist without  organs.  It  very  shortly  becomes 
essential  that  the  Beloved  Community  should 
set  apart  certain  men  for  the  exercise  of  the 
peculiarly  priestly  functions.  If  it  does  not 
do  so,  the  whole  idea  of  the  Community  as  an 
organism  very  soon  disappears. 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  MINISTRY  115 

c.  Limitations.  The  priest  represents  us  to  God 
only  on  the  corporate  side.  He  does  not,  or 
should  not,  in  any  way  intervene  between  the 
individual  and  God,  except  to  aid  and  encour- 
age the  individual  to  find  his  own  means  of 
approach.  Nor  must  he  become  a  crutch  for 
the  individual. 

6.  Roman  theory  of  priesthood. 

The  Roman  Church,  and  it  alone,  holds  a  rather 
different  view  of  the  priesthood  than  that  stated.  It 
holds  that  the  priest  derives  his  authority,  not 
through  the  whole  Church,  but  through  and  by  com- 
mission of  the  Pope  as  Vicegerent  of  God  on  earth. 
This  seriously  impairs  the  representative  idea. 
Rome,  also,  in  practice,  although  not  perhaps  in 
theory,  disregards  the  limitations  stated  in  §5c. 

7.  Is  the  Apostolic  Succession  worth  insisting  on? 

It  is  often  argued  that  the  three-fold  ministry  is 
not  primitive, — therefore  it  is  not  essential  and 
should  be  abandoned  in  the  interests  of  unity.  This 
does  not  follow.  If  the  system  is  not  primitive 
(about  which  opinions  differ),  it  was  a  very  early, 
normal  development.  Unless  God  entirely  aban- 
doned his  Church  after  the  first  century,  the  system 
must  surely  be  said  to  have  his  sanction  (Disc. 
XXII).  Theoretically  the  system  is  not  essential 
to  the  Catholic  idea  of  a  Church.  But  without  epis- 
copacy it  would  be  as  difficult  to  maintain  a  coher- 
ent Church  on  a  large  scale  as  it  would  be  to  main- 
tain an  efficient  State  under  a  system  of  pure  democ- 
racy. As  a  matter  of  fact  we  find  that  those  who 
have  dropped  the  episcopal  form  of  government  have 
very  soon  lost  the  ideal  of  the  Church  as  an  organic 
unity.  That  ideal,  it  seems  to  me,  we  must  at  all 
cost  maintain. 


116  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

8.  Practical  considerations. 

In  the  last  three  lectures  the  attempt  has  been 
made  to  demonstrate  the  necessity  of  the  corporate 
idea  in  Christianity,  including  the  three  ideas  which 
we  find  correlated,  namely  an  organic  Church,  an  ef- 
ficient sacrament,  and  a  priesthood.  It  should,  how- 
ever, be  noted  that  the  Communions  holding  that 
idea  have  not  always  in  practice  produced  a  superior 
type  of  Christian  experience.  In  the  first  place  few 
Christian  bodies  present  a  perfect  example  either 
of  the  organic,  or  the  aggregate,  type.  The 
Eastern  and  Western  Churches,  quarreling  for  a 
thousand  years  over  the  word  filioque  in  the  Creed, 
or  the  Anglican  Church,  repelling  the  Wesleys,  can 
hardly  be  said  to  display  perfect  Catholicity.  On 
the  other  hand  very  few  Protestant  Churches  are 
purely  individualistic.  Furthermore,  other  virtues 
or  vices  in  the  life  of  the  particular  Communion  may 
counterbalance  its  shortcomings  or  excellence  in  re- 
spect to  the  corporate  ideal.  So  that  it  has  often 
happened  that  Churches  utterly  lacking  in  that  re- 
spect have  developed  a  surpassingly  high  standard 
of  personal  excellence.  Nevertheless,  the  organic,  or 
Catholic,  idea  appears  to  be  best  fitted  to  satisfy  the 
social  instincts  of  mankind. 

9.  Conclusion. 

The  Beloved  Community  is  a  true  organism,  hav- 
ing a  life  built  up  out  of  the  lives  of  its  members, 
yet  transcending  them,  as  the  life  of  the  body  tran- 
scends the  lives  of  the  cells.  Participation  in  the 
life  of  that  Community  is  essential  to  the  fullest 
self-realization.  The  sacraments  are  efficient,  rather 
than  representative,  symbols, — they  actually  do 
something, — because  they  actually  do  convey  to  the 
recipient  a  share  in  the  corporate  life  of  the  Beloved 
Community,  which  is  God.     An  organism  must  de- 


THE  IDEA  OF  A  MINISTRY  117 

velop  organs  through  which  it  may  function.  Hence 
the  Beloved  Community  has  developed  a  priesthood 
through  whom,  as  its  representatives,  and  hence  as 
the  representatives  both  of  God  and  man,  the  Com- 
munity performs  its  priestly  function  of  represent- 
ing God  to  man  and  man  to  God. 


DISCUSSION  XXI. 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  DOCTRINE. 

1.  The  fact  of  influence  from  without. 

a.  It  is  unquestionable  that  Christianity  is  built 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  Hebrew  religion, 
i.  Jesus  said,  "I  come  not  to  destroy  but  to 
fulfill."  ii.  His  ethics  were  not  a  new  depar- 
ture. He  did  not  reject  Jewish  ethics;  but 
appealed  from  the  current  legalism  to  the 
best  Hebrew  prophetic  and  raj)binical  tradi- 
tion, iii.  His  theology,  notably  as  to  God, 
immortality,  sin,  and  atonement,  was  based 
upon  Jewish  theology,  correcting  and  ampli- 
fying it. 

b.  It  is,  also,  unquestionable,  although  not  so 
generally  admitted,  that  Christianity  in  the 
first  centuries  built  into  its  structure  many 
elements  from  the  current  Greek  religions: 
such  as  certain  conceptions  of  atonement,  in- 
carnation, church,  sacraments,  and  ministry 
(see  Discussions  on  those  subjects). 

c.  It  is,  also,  demonstrable  that  Christianity 
has  from  time  to  time,  subsequently  to  the 
apostolic  age,  adopted,  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, new  elements,  chiefly,  but  not  al- 
together, ceremonial,  from  its  religious  and 
social  environment:  observance  of  December 
25th  as  the  Feast  of  Nativity  (the  primitive 
Church  celebrated  the  Epiphany,  rather  than 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  DOCTRINE  119 

the  Nativity)  from  the  Roman  Saturnalia; 
government  by  provinces  and  dioceses  from 
Roman  law;  symbolic  use  of  the  cross  from 
Egyptian  religion. 

2.  The  fact  of  development  within. 

a.  Dogmatic  development.  The  dogmatic  defini- 
tion of  the  facts  of  Christian  religious  ex- 
perience developed  gradually,  as  the  need 
was  felt  to  make  explicit  that  which  was  be- 
fore implicit.  The  course  of  development  was 
in  general  this:  Attention  would  become 
focused  upon  some  particular  field  of  reli- 
gious experience  and  various  tentative  efforts 
would  be  made  to  rationalize  this  experience, 
that  is  to  relate  it  to  the  other  facts  of  Chris- 
tian experience  and  to  the  general  body  of 
accepted  doctrine,  religious  and  philosophi- 
cal. The  various  explanations  were  discussed, 
their  respective  insufficiencies  pointed  out, 
and  eventually  a  definition  was  worked  out 
which  met  with  general  approval.  In  this 
way,  for  example,  Trinitarian  and  Christolog- 
ical  doctrine  developed  (Disc.  XI  and  XIII). 
Sometimes,  as  in  those  cases,  the  final  defi- 
nition was  arrived  at  by  a  General  Council; 
sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  Eucharistic  doc- 
trine, by  a  consensus  of  theologians.  In  ar- 
gument and  definition  the  writers  made  use  of 
ideas  then  current  in  the  philosophy  and 
science  of  their  day ;  but  the  facts  with  which 
they  dealt  were  facts  of  essentially  Christian 
experience. 

b.  Institutional  development.  The  Church  has 
always  exercised  great  freedom  in  bringing 
into  being  new  organs  for  carrying  on  its 
work.      Sometimes,    but    not    always,    these 


120  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

represent  a  practically  new  departure,  as  in 
monasticism  (although  monasticism  had  its 
antecedent  in  the  unregulated  solitary  ascet- 
icism of  the  hermits). 

Problem:  Is  not  Christianity  largely  a  syncret- 
ism of  other  religions  and  a  corruption  of  the 
teaching  of  the  Master;  and  how  are  we  to  get 
at  the  real  essence  of  Christianity? 

3.  Two  theories  of  Christian  truth. 

a.  Truth  a  deposit.  According  to  this  view 
Christ  enunciated  a  body  of  doctrine  and  laid 
out  a  pattern  of  institutions;  his  teachings 
were  supplemented  by  statements  of  his  apos- 
tles as  contained  in  the  epistles,  under  verbal 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  such  teach- 
ings alone  constitute  true  Christianit}- ;  any 
additions  are  corruptions.  This  is  the  tra- 
ditional theory,  both  of  Protestants  and  Cath- 
olics; although  it  would  hardly  seem  to  be 
consistent  with  the  Catholic  theory  of  the 
Church  as  a  living,  and  hence,  a  developing 
organism. 

b.  Truth  a  growth.  According  to  this  view 
Christ  not  only  taught,  but  ivaSj  the  Way, 
the  Truth,  and  the  Life.  He  had  many  things 
to  tell  his  apostles  that  they  could  not  then 
'^bear".  Christ's  work  was  only  begun ;  and 
he  had  promised  that  the  Spirit  of  Truth 
should  lead  his  followers  into  all  truth  and 
that  he,  Christ,  should  be  with  them  unto  the 
"consummation  of  the  age".  According  to 
this  view  Christian  truth,  like  the  Christian 
Church,  is  a  body,  capable  of  development, 
and  not  an  aggregate  of  more  or  less  unre- 
lated precepts. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  DOCTRINE  121 

4.  Objections  to  the  deposit  theory. 

a.  When  you  have  stripped  off  the  "accretions" 
you  have  practically  nothing  left.  The  in- 
vestigations of  Harnack,  who  made  the  at- 
tempt in  this  manner  to  get  at  the  essence 
of  Christianity,  led  him  to  conclude  that  it 
consisted  mainly  in  ethical  precepts.  Very 
many  critics  have  contended  that  most,  even 
of  these,  were  not  original  with  Jesus.  It  is 
as  though  one  should  try  to  find  the  head 
of  a  cabbage  by  stripping  off  the  leaves,  or 
to  deduce  the  physical  properties  of  water  by 
a  study  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen.  The  truth 
is  that  in  living  processes  one  plus  one  never 
equals  two.  It  has  been  pointed  out  by  Berg- 
son  {Creative  Evolution)  that  biologists  have 
made  the  same  mistake,  in  endeavoring  to  get 
at  the  essential  difference  between  plants 
and  animals  by  investigation  of  the  original 
and  least  differentiated  forms.  At  that  stage 
the  two  forms  are  indistinguishable.  As 
Bergsou  points  out,  it  is  the  fullest  devel- 
oped, and  not  the  least  developed,  form  which 
is  significant.  "By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know 
them." 

b.  You  can  never  be  sure  of  what  your  "deposit" 
consists.  You  are  betting  the  validity  of  your 
doctrine  on  the  authenticity  of  particular 
texts  and  upon  the  assumption  that  the  doc- 
trine therein  contained  was  not  imported 
from  some  non-Christian  source.  You  are 
constantly  in  peril  of  being  convinced  that 
the  text  in  question  was  a  mistranslation  or 
interpolation,  or  that  the  writing  in  which  it 
was  contained  was  not  written  by  the  man 
whom  tradition  has  named  as  the  author. 


122  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

c.  This  theory  reduces  Christianity  to  a  museum 
of  ecclesiastical  antiquities.  Every  living 
thing  grows. 

d.  It  does  not  permit  of  variation  to  accommo- 
date religion  to  changing  social  environment. 
Where  this  view  obtains  the  life  of  the  Church 
is  cramped  within  the  trammels  of  a  bygone 
age.  Development  is  forcibly  postponed; 
and  when  it  comes,  as  it  must  come,  it  con- 
stitutes a  complete  break  with  the  past. 

e.  This  theory  is  in  conflict  with  the  modern 
view  that  all  history  is  a  record  of  develop- 
ment. It  is  a  cynical  view  of  Christian  his- 
tory which  rejects  nineteen-twentieths  of  it 
as  hopelessly  corrupt  and  bids  us  dig  for 
vestiges  of  the  golden  age  in  the  dust  of  Pal- 
estine. Such  an  opinion  is  the  reductio  ad 
absurdum  of  the  deposit  theory  and  of  the 
inorganic  view  of  the  Church  to  which  that 
theory  is  related. 

5.  Organic  theory  of  development. 
The  course  of  development  of  Christian  doctrine 
can  be  justified  and  explained  only  on  the  theory 
that  the  Church  is  an  organism.  If  the  Church  were 
merely  an  aggregate  of  individuals  holding  certain 
doctrines  deposited  with  them,  then  it  would  follow 
that  any  addition  to  that  deposit  would  be  illegiti- 
mate and  it  would  always  remain  an  enclave.  Hence 
such  changes  would  be  unjustifiable.  But  we  find 
that  such  elements  as  have  come  into  Christianity 
from  the  outside  have  not  remained  foreign,  but  have 
been  baptized  into  Christianity  and  have  been  di- 
gested by  it.  For  instance,  the  Christian  Mystery 
was  transformed  and  glorified  from  its  baser  pro- 
totype. The  Church,  like  the  human  body,  draws 
sustenance  from  its  surroundings,  and  like  the  hu- 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  DOCTRINE  123 

man  body,  it  has  shown  a  tremendous  power  of  di- 
gestion and  assimilation;  while  still  retaining  its 
essential  nature  intact.  Again,  like  the  human  body, 
it  eliminates  any  material  harmful  to  its  life.  Ele- 
ments out  of  line  with  the  main  stream  of  develop- 
ment, after  being  relegated  to  heretical  bodies,  have 
finally  passed  into  oblivion.  There  are  no  Gnostics 
or  Arians  today.  Unless  we  are  prepared  to  say 
that  the  Spirit  acted  only  for  one  brief  period  in 
Palestine,  and  that  he  was  wholly  absent  among 
heathen  nations  before  that  time,  and  from  Chris- 
tianity since  that  time,  we  cannot  regard  the  devel- 
opment of  doctrine  otherwise  than  as  his  continuous 
work.  Says  Augustine  (Retract.  I,  13,)  :  "The  very 
thing  which  now  the  Christian  religion  sets  forth  is 
from  of  old  and  was  never  wanting  since  the  begin- 
ning of  the  human  race ;  so  that,  when  Christ  himself 
came  in  the  flesh,  the  true  religion,  which  already 
existed,  began  to  be  called  Christian." 

6.  Process  of  development. 

Insofar  as  some  historians  describe  the  process 
of  development  as  conscious  and  deliberate  they  ap- 
pear to  be  for  the  most  part  in  error.  The  elements 
may  be  described  as  follows : 

a.  Similarities  to  other  religions  may  frequently 
be  explained  as  not  borrowings  at  all,  but 
simply  coincidences.  Example,  the  festival 
of  Easter  coincides  with  certain  pre-Chris- 
tian festivals  in  honor  of  the  annual  vernal 
phenomenon  of  generation,  or  the  universal 
generative  principle.  Yet  the  date  of  Easter 
was  derived,  not  from  such  festivals,  but  from 
the  date  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  the  Jew- 
ish Passover ;  and  the  occasion  of  the  festival 
is  found  wholly  in  that  event. 


124  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

b.  Other  similarities  are  due  to  the  parallel,  but 
unrelated,  development  of  certain  basic  relig- 
ious ideas  common  to  many  religions.  Thus, 
the  monastic  systems  of  Buddhism  and  Chris- 
tianity both  arose  out  of  a  universal  religious 
tendency  to  asceticism  and  developed  along 
strikingly  analogous  lines ;  but  there  seems  to 
be  no  evidence  of  adoption  from  one  religion 
to  the  other. 

c.  In  many  instances,  however,  a  real  genetic 
relationship  may  be  traced.  Yet,  even  in 
such  instances,  there  was  in  general  no  con- 
scious appropriation  of  ideas.  What  hap- 
pened was  rather  that  converts  to  Chris- 
tianity unconsciously  carried  over  the  lan- 
guage and  modes  of  thought  to  which  they 
had  been  accustomed  and  applied  them  in  de- 
scribing and  explaining  the  facts  of  Chris- 
tian religious  experience.  Thus  with  the 
Eucharist.  Instituted  with  the  enigmatical 
words,  "This  is  my  body;  this  is  my  blood,'' 
the  sacrament,  whatever  it  may  have  meant 
to  the  earliest  believers,  must  inevitably  have 
been  rationalized  by  the  Greeks  in  line  with 
the  sacramental  meals  of  their  own  religion. 
It  was  for  them  the  Christian  Mystery.  This 
idea,  while  a  development,  was  thoroughly 
in  line  with  the  earlier  conceptions  regard- 
ing the  sacrament;  hence  it  was  taken  into 
the  body  of  Christian  doctrine.  Other  non- 
Christian  ideas  which  sought  entrance,  such 
as  the  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics,  were  found 
to  be  opposed  to  the  genius  of  Christianity, 
and  were  rejected  by  the  Church.  They  were 
supported  for  a  time  by  small  bodies  of  here- 
tics and  finally  tapered  off  into  oblivion. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  DOCTRINE  125 

d.  In  a  few  instances,  such  as  the  symbolic  use 
of  the  cross,  there  was  deliberate  borrowing. 
But  this  was  done  only  with  non-essentials, 
where  it  seemed  that  a  worthy  custom  or 
idea  should  be  allowed  to  do  duty  in  the  ser- 
vice of  Christ. 

e.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  Paul  took  the  ethi- 
cal precepts  of  Christ  and  on  them  built  a 
sacramental  religion.  We  have  tried  to  show 
in  the  past  three  Discussions  that  the  sacra- 
mental elements  obtained  in  Christianity 
from  the  first.  In  the  matter  of  the  Eucharist, 
above  referred  to,  it  is  evident  from  PauPs 
letter  to  the  Corinthians  that  the  Mystery 
connotation  was  already  well  known  to  them 
when  Paul  wrote.  His  purpose  in  that  letter 
is  not  to  establish,  but  to  regulate  it.  I  be- 
lieve it  to  be  demonstrable  that  Paul's  service 
to  theology  in  every  field  which  he  touched 
was  rather  in  sj^stematizing  and  giving  prac- 
tical application  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
than  in  modifying  the  doctrine  itself  (save 
probably  in  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith  rather  than  by  the  Law) . 

7.  It  does  not  follow  that  change  is  always  true 
development.  It  may  be  corruption.  So  the 
problem  of  this  lecture  may  be  restated  as  follows: 

Problem:     How  may  we  distinguish  between  true 
development  and  corruption? 

8.  Criteria  of  true  development. 

a.  It  must  not  run  counter  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Master's  life  and  teaching,  as  gathered,  not 
from  particular  texts,  but  from  the  whole 
record.  For  this  purpose  the  study  of  origins 
is  not  only  permissible,  but  necessary. 


126  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

b.  It  must  be  congruous  with  the  genius  of 
Christianity,  the  whole  course  of  valid  de- 
velopment up  to  that  time.  It  must  be  a  log- 
ical deduction  from  the  main  stream  of  prior 
doctrine. 

c.  It  must  not  misinterpret,  or  leave  out  of  ac- 
count, any  facts  of  Christian  religious  expe- 
rience, and  it  must  at  the  same  time  interpret 
them  in  the  language  and  spirit  of  the  age. 

d.  It  must  work.  It  must  tend  to  produce  a 
higher  type  of  Christian  life,  both  individual 
and  social. 

9.  The  value  of  authority. 

The  view  of  doctrine  taken  in  these  discussions 
does  not  involve  lawless  disregard  for  authority. 
Says  Dean  Inge  {Faith  and  its  Psychology,  p.  106) : 
"Though  we  cannot  for  a  moment  admit  that  infalli- 
bility resides  in  the  decisions  of  any  man,  or  council, 
present  or  past,  it  would  not  be  easy  to  over-estimate 
the  advantages  of  tradition  in  matters  of  Faith. 
Each  age  is  liable  to  be  carried  away  by  some  domi- 
nant idea,  which  soon  becomes  a  superstition. 
Authority  has  a  steadying  influence,  forbidding  us 
to  ignore  doctrines  which  for  the  time  are  unpopular 
and  preserving  to  some  extent  'the  proportion  of 
Faith.'  In  these  high  matters  the  dead  as  well  as 
the  living  have  a  right  to  speak;  and  respect  for 
authority  is  the  courtesy  which  we  pay  to  the  voices 
of  'famous  men  and  our  fathers  that  begat  us'.'' 

10.  Conclusion. 

Doctrine  has  developed  gradually  throughout 
Christian  history  to  epitomize  and  explain  the  facts 
of  Christian  religious  experience.  The  facts  have 
remained  the  same,  but  our  explanation,  our  ability 
to  appreciate  them,  if  you  will,  has  developed.    This 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  DOCTRINE  127 

development,  like  all  good  works,  we  conceive  to 
have  been  effected  through  the  inspiration  of  the 
Spirit.  But,  since  the  Spirit  was  working  through 
human  agencies,  the  infallibility  of  the  results  ob- 
tained is  not  guaranteed.  However,  the  authority 
of  a  general  concensus  in  favor  of  some  doctrine 
is  very  great.  The  doctrine  may  admit  of  further 
development  or  reinterpretation ;  but  the  chances  of 
total  error  are  reduced  to  a  minimum. 

Since  the  Church  is  an  organism,  both  its  doctrine 
and  its  institutions  are  constantly  developing, — 
otherwise  the  Church  would  be  dead.  It  is  not  a 
museum  of  ecclesiastical  antiquities.  It  is  fruitless, 
therefore,  to  attempt  to  make  the  Church  of  today 
conform  to  the  standard  of  the  sixteenth  century, 
or  of  the  tenth,  or  of  the  first.  It  cannot  bring  back 
the  past,  or  live  again  the  inner  life  of  those  times, 
and  conformity  to  them  in  outward  appearances 
only  is  faithlessness  to  their  ideal.  (See  the  essay 
entitled  The  Relevancy  of  Religion  in  Part  II.) 

I  trust  that  by  a  little  I  may  have  helped  to  make 
it  appear  that  the  dogmas  here  dealt  with  are  not 
in  conflict  with  science  and  that  they  do  embody 
the  Christian  experience  of  the  ages,  the  mtnd  of  a 
living  Church. 

If  they  do  embody  religious  experience,  they  have 
satisfied  one  of  the  scientific  tests  of  truth,  namely 
the  test  of  observation, — they  fit  all  the  observed 
facts.  But  there  remains  one  scientific  test  that 
each  man  must  apply  for  himself,  namely  the  test 
of  experiment.  The  true  scientist  is  never  satisfied 
to  take  the  results  of  another's  observation,  he  must 
test  them  himself.  Now  each  individual  must,  if  he 
be  honest,  try  these  doctrines  in  his  own  life,  be- 
fore he  may  either  finally  affirm  or  reject  them.  It 
was  in  this  way  that  Waggett  persuaded  Romanes, 


128  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

who  was  then  agnostic,  of  the  truth  of  Christianity. 
It  was  hardly  fair,  he  said,  that  Romanes,  a  scientist, 
should  refuse  to  apply  the  method  of  experiment  to 
Christianity.  Romanes  agreed  to  make  the  experi- 
ment, and  in  a  year  became  convinced.  If  one  will 
honestly  live  for  a  year,  as  if  believing  in  God  and 
in  the  future  life,  in  the  Incarnation  and  Atone- 
ment, and  in  an  organic  Church  and  efficient  sacra- 
ments, the  result  of  the  experiment  may  be  awaited 
with  confidence. 


DISCUSSION  XXII. 

PRESENT   DAY   PROBLEMS. 

The  following  topics  are  suggested  for  this  final 
Discussion. 

1.  What  has  the  Church  to  contribute  to  the  social 
crisis?  Should  she  advocate  specific  changes  in  so- 
cial or  industrial  organization?  Should  she  sup- 
port specific  remedial  legislation  ? 

2.  "What  should  be  her  attitude  toward  preven- 
tion of  war?  Should  she  endeavor  to  effect  a  Truce 
of  God  by  threatening,  as  did  the  British  labor 
unions,  to  lay  the  country  under  an  industrial  inter- 
dict, if  war  were  declared  unwarrantably?  Is  war 
always  sinful? 

3.  What  should  be  her  attitude  toward  philan- 
thropy? Should  she  engage  in  institutional  work 
systematically,  as  a  means  of  recruiting  members; 
or  should  she  only  do  so  in  an  emergency  and  until 
some  other  agency  should  take  up  the  work  ?  Should 
the  healing  of  the  sick  be  one  of  her  functions? 

4.  The  reunion  of  Christendom.  Is  it  advisable; 
or  would  it,  if  accomplished,  result  in  bigotry  and 
stagnation?  If  reunion  is  effected,  how  may  these 
results  be  avoided?  Is  reunion  possible  and  would 
it  be  permanent  ?  The  method  and  terms  of  reunion  : 
— ecclesiastical  alliances  (such  as  the  Federal  Coun- 
cil of  Churches)  ;  spiritual  accord  and  intercommu- 
nion between  independent  organizations  (as  between 
the  Anglicans,    Swedish,   and   Eastern   Churches)  ; 


130  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

constitutional  amalgamation.  The  Lambeth  pro- 
posals. What  will  the  Church  of  the  future  be? 
What  element  might  each  of  the  present  divisions 
of  Christendom  contribute? 


PART  II 


THE  RELEVANCY  OF  RELIGION. 


Religious  doubt  today  is  quite  as  much  pragmatic 
as  intellectual.  For  one  man  who  regretfully  puts  aside  his 
religion  because  it  seems  to  be  at  variance  with  modern 
science  and  philosophy,  there  are  five  to  whom  the  problem 
never  presents  itself  in  the  light  of  what  William  James 
would  call  "a  practical  option", — who  feel  that  religion  has 
no  appreciable  effect  upon  the  conduct  of  the  individual,  or 
the  welfare  of  society,  and  that  we  are  as  well  off  without  it. 
Such  views  are  held  by  very  many  men  and  women  of  the 
highest  integrity  and  the  most  sincere  devotion  to  the  service 
of  society.  To  them  the  issues  which  Christians  have  de- 
bated and  for  which  martyrs  have  shed  their  blood,  even 
the  great  fundamental  questions  of  the  existence  of  God  and 
of  immortality,  seem  to  be  of  small  practical  importance, 
and  religion  itself  to  be  irrelevant. 

Such  men  are  impressed  by  the  discrepancy  between  the 
ideals  of  Christianity  and  the  conduct  of  individual  Chris- 
tians, by  the  failure  of  the  Churches  to  make  themselves 
felt  in  the  cause  of  civic  righteousness  and  social  betterment, 
by  the  disproportion  between  the  labor  and  wealth  expended 
upon  the  Churches  and  their  influence  in  the  world.  On  the 
other  hand  they  take  notice  of  the  tremendous  efficiency  of 
welfare  associations  having  no  religious  affiliations.  Desir- 
ing to  use  their  effort  where  it  will  be  most  immediately 
effective,  they  align  themselves  with  such  associations. 

Another  class,  while  acknowledging  the  value  of  reli- 
gion in  general,  are  unable  to  attach  any  practical  impor- 
tance to  particular  doctrines,  or  systems.  All  religious  sys- 
tems, say  they,  are  working  to  the  same  end,  so  why  concern 
oneself  with  their  differences?  A  good  Methodist  and  a 
good  Presbyterian,  a  good  Catholic  and  a  good  Protestant, 


134  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

nay,  a  good  Buddhist  and  a  good  Christian,  all  alike  are 
serving  their  fellow  man  and  doing  the  will  of  God.  If  re- 
ligious beliefs  are  to  be  measured  by  their  fruits,  how  can  we 
discriminate  between  them? 

Let  us  be  perfectly  frank  about  this.  There  is  a  grave 
discrepancy  between  the  ideals  of  Christianity  and  the  con- 
duct of  Christians ;  the  Churches  are  not  exerting  the  influ- 
ence which  one  might  expect  of  them ;  the  non-religious 
associations  are  tremendously  effective;  Buddhism  does  pro- 
duce its  saints.  And  so  the  problem  which  these  questioners 
present  is  by  no  means  trifling.  Yet  it  seems  to  me  that  a 
thoughtful  analysis  of  each  of  these  classes  of  objections  in 
turn  will  show  that,  after  all,  religion  is  relevant  and  be- 
lief does  matter. 

In  all  questions  concerning  the  conduct  of  the  indi- 
vidual it  must  be  remembered  that  religion  is  only  one  factor, 
and  sometimes  a  very  small  factor.  All  the  vast  weight  of 
heredity  and  all  the  influence  of  environment,  his  home,  his 
business,  his  education,  tell  tremendously  in  the  conduct  of 
the  individual;  and  in  all  these  respects  no  two  men  are 
alike.  Hence  comparison  between  individuals  is  absolutely 
worthless;  the  value  of  religion  to  the  individual  can  only 
be  determined  by  a  comparison  of  his  conduct  before  the 
element  of  religious  belief  was  brought  to  bear  upon  him 
and  his  conduct  afterward.  Here  the  evidence  is  overwhelm- 
ing. From  Augustine  and  Francis  of  Assisi  to  the  men  of 
today  described  by  Harold  Begbie  in  his  Twice  Born  Men, 
tales  which  can  be  matched  by  any  priest,  or  preacher,  or 
Salvation  Army  lassie,  the  power  of  religious  belief  to  break 
down  old  habits  and  regenerate  the  sinner  is  demonstrated. 
That  there  is  today  so  high  a  standard  of  morality  among 
those  of  no  religious  belief  is  perhaps  to  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  they  got  their  early  training  from  God-fearing 
parents  and  that  the  Churches  are  still  able  to  set  the  stand- 
ard for  the  nation.  At  any  rate,  if  modern  civilization  shall 
be  able  permanently  to  conserve  morality  in  the  absence  of 
the  religious  motive,  it  will  be  an  achievement  absolutely 
unique  in   history. 

True  it  is  that  non-religious  welfare  associations  some- 


THE  RELEVANCY  OF  RELIGION  135 

times  outstrip  the  Cliurches  in  their  efforts  for  social  and 
civic  betterment.  Yet  is  it  not  true  that  most  of  the  sup- 
port for  these  associations  and  most  of  the  workers  em- 
ployed in  them  are  members  of  Churches?  And,  after  all, 
is  it  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  engage  directly  in  these  en- 
terprises, or  rather  to  inspire  its  members  to  do  the  work 
through  outside  agencies?  The  question  is  not  by  any 
means  easy  to  answer.  Of  a  certainty,  if  there  is  work 
of  this  sort  pressing  to  be  done  and  no  other  agency  to  un- 
dertake it,  the  Church  must  not,  like  the  priest  and  the  Le- 
vite  in  the  parable,  pass  by  on  the  other  side.  When,  how- 
ever, the  city  or  state  government,  or  some  charitable  or- 
ganization, can  be  induced  to  take  charge,  should  not  it  be 
allowed   to  do  so? 

The  first  hospitals,  the  first  schools,  and  the  first  alms- 
houses in  Western  Europe  and  America,  were  maintained 
by  the  Church.  And  its  honorable  preeminence  in  this  re- 
gard it  has  never  lost.  There  is,  however,  in  all  welfare 
work,  apart  from  religion,  an  element  of  futility. 

Reginald  Campbell,  the  gifted  English  divine,  when  lec- 
turing in  this  country  shortly  before  the  Great  War,  out- 
lined the  developments  which  he  regarded  as  necessary 
to  the  welfare  of  this  country.  "You  must  have,"  said 
he,  "prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic,  equal  suffrage  for 
women,  and  adequate  wages  for  labor.  These  things  are 
necessary  to  your  well-being  and  I  predict  that  they  will 
come.  Yet,  when  all  these  reforms  have  been  achieved,  your 
country  will  be  not  much  the  better  for  them.  Nothing 
will  solve  your  problems  but  a  new  appreciation  of  religion. 
You  cannot  have  a  new  earth  until  you  have  a  new  heaven." 

The  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy  is  startling.  Pro- 
hibition and  woman  suffrage  have  been  written  into  the  Con- 
stitution, and  until  recently  the  wages  of  labor  have  been, 
not  only  high,  but  exorbitant.  Yet  prohibition  does  not  pro- 
hibit; the  votes  of  women  have  not  apparently  been  cast 
very  differently  from  those  of  the  men ;  and  labor  was  any- 
thing but  wise  in  spending  its  unhoped-for  increment. 

Half  the  w^orld  starves  and  all  the  world  is  rent  by  na- 
tional and  racial  suspicions,  jealousies,  and  hatreds.  Were 
it  not  for  sheer  exhaustion,  the  nations  of  Europe  would 
again  be  flying  at  each  other's  throats.     We  in  America  sit 


136  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

smugly  by,  thanking  God  that  we  are  not  as  other  men,  re- 
fusing to  lift  a  finger  to  help  our  brothers,  hugging  our- 
selves that  we  are  well  out  of  the  mess,  and  fondly  imagin- 
ing that  we  can  stay  out.  Meanwhile,  hooded  gangs  of 
cowards,  some  of  them  by  day  the  first  citizens  in  their 
communities,  override  our  land,  intimidating  the  defenceless, 
and  out-matching  the  cruelties  of  the  Spanish  Inquisitors. 
The  millenium  is  as  far  off  today  as  it  ever  was  in  all 
history. 

Right  here  is  the  crucial  question.  Either  modern  civili- 
zation is  well-founded  and  delectable,  or  at  the  worst  in 
need  of  only  slight  amendment,  such  as  we  may  apply 
through  our  welfare  associations  and  peace  treaties,  or 
else  it  is  sick  unto  death  and  needs  a  drastic  remedy.  If 
we  are  well  pleased  with  civilization  as  it  is,  then  religion 
will  make  no  appeal  to  us. 

It  is,  indeed,  just  this  self-satisfaction  which  is  the 
greatest  hindrance  to  religious  belief  to-day.  The  natural 
forces,  of  which  but  yesterday  we  stood  in  awe,  are  now  be- 
come our  menials ;  we  have  conquered  a  continent  and 
enormously  increased  our  wealth ;  we  have  given  education 
and  the  suffrage  to  everyone  and  have  made  the  world  safe 
for  democracy ;  why  should  we  not  feel  adequate  to  solve  all 
our  problems  unaided !  We  have  lost  the  feeling  of  awe,  the 
sense  of  dependence,  the  realization  of  sin,  and  the  conviction 
that  salvation  must  be  achieved  through  suffering,  ideas 
which  have  lain  at  the  foundation  of  all  religions  since  the 
Stone  Age.  Our  latest  cult  is  based  upon  the  total  denial 
of  sin  and  suffering. 

Self-suflficiency  is  absolutely  fatal  to  religion.  "I  am 
come,"  said  the  Master,  "to  call,  not  the  righteous,  but  sin- 
ners to  repentance."  No  man,  nor  nation,  can  be  truly  re- 
ligious to  whom  there  does  not  come,  at  least  now  and 
then,  a  terrific  sense  of  impotence  and  unworthiness,  the 
mood  to  say  with  fearful  heart  the  Dies  Jrae. 

One  would  think  that  the  World  War  and  the  disorders 
that  have  followed  it  would  sufficiently  warn  us  of  the 
dangers  of  this  false  security.  But  perhaps  the  warnings 
will  be  unheeded.  Christianity  has  reestablished  a  fallen 
civilization  once  and  it  may  have  to  do  so  again. 


THE  RELEVANCY  OF  RELIGION  137 

The  other  class  of  objections  goes,  not  to  the  importance 
of  religion  in  general,  but  to  the  value  of  specific  doctrines. 
All  religions,  so  the  argument  runs,  have  the  same  goal,  to 
establish  right  relations  between  man  and  God  and,  as  a 
corollary,  between  man  and  man;  all  religions  alike  meas- 
urably succeed ;  while  in  all  religions  the  great  body  of  be- 
lievers, though  differing  sharply  in  matters  of  doctrine,  go 
on  sinning  the  same  sins.  From  this  it  is  deduced  that  it  is 
the  intensity  of  conviction,  rather  than  the  nature  of  the 
belief,  which  counts;  that  one  belief  is  as  good  as  another. 
If  this  be  true,  and  it  is  held  very  widely  to  be  true,  then 
there  is  no  basis  for  a  science  of  religion,  such  as  has  been 
attempted  in  these  essays;  for  I  have  attempted  to  deduce 
the  beliefs  of  Christianity,  not  from  external  authority,  but 
from  the  facts  of  religious  experience. 

It  should  be  noted  in  the  first  place  that  it  is  exceedingly 
diflacult  to  evaluate  specific  beliefs  on  the  basis  of  their  ef- 
fect upon  the  believer,  since  they  are  never  found  in  the 
pure  state,  but  always  as  contained  in  a  mixture  with  other 
beliefs.  Thus  the  belief  in  and  practice  of  a  mystical  ex- 
perience of  God  produces  one  result  in  the  Quaker  and  quite 
another  in  the  Roman  Catholic  mystic,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
Buddhist.  Even  as  to  whole  systems  of  belief  the  inquiry  is 
complicated  by  questions  of  race,  customs,  civilization,  and 
other  non-religious  influences.  The  Irish  Roman  Catholic 
is  a  very  different  man,  even  in  religious  life,  from  his 
brother  of  Italy. 

The  tendency  of  these  other  influences  to  obscure  the  in- 
fluence of  religious  ideas  varies,  of  course,  inversely  with 
the  strength  of  conviction  behind  the  religious  idea.  Bergson 
has  pointed  out  that  the  efforts  of  biologists  to  differentiate 
between  the  plant  and  the  animal  by  taking  the  least  devel- 
oped species  in  each  kingdom  as  a  criterion,  has  proved  un- 
successful, since  at  that  low  point  in  development  there  is 
actually  no  distinguishing  feature;  and  that  the  difference 
must  be  studied  as  it  achieves  its  goal  in  the  highest  and 
most  differentiated  species  in  each  kingdom.  So  in  religion. 
The  sinners  of  all  religions  are  identical;  it  is  only  the 
saints  who  are  different. 


138  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

To  be  sure  the  saints  of  all  religions  are  alike  in  this, 
that  they  are  all  good  men.  But  their  goodness,  while  of 
the  same  degree,  is  of  very  different  type.  For  example. 
Savonarola,  John  Wesley,  and  Billy  Sunday  all  led  great 
revivals,  yet  their  aims,  methods,  and  results  differed 
widely,  largely  owing  to  their  differences  in  religious  belief. 
Francis  of  Assisi  and  General  Booth  were  both  lovers  of 
the  poor,  yet  the  Franciscan  Friars  and  the  Salvation  Army 
have  little  in  common  in  their  method  of  operation. 

Differences  of  belief  often  outweigh  identity  of  race  and 
environment.  Part  of  the  Hindus  are  Brahmans  and  part 
Mohammedans.  The  former  believe  in  a  heaven  consisting 
of  absorption  into  the  Godhead ;  they  are  mystics  and  paci- 
fists. The  latter  believe  in  a  warrior's  heaven ;  they  are  sol- 
diers. The  Puritan  religion  changed  the  easy-going,  beef- 
eating  Englishman  of  Elizabeth's  Merrie  England  to  the 
stern,  hard-hitting  Covenanter  of  Cromwell. 

Now,  in  these  essays  and  discussions  the  effort  is  made  to 
evaluate  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  both  on  the  basis  of 
the  religious  experience  which  produced  them  and  of  their 
practical  effect.  For  example,  in  connection  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  it  is  pointed  out,  both  that  we  instinct- 
ively think  of  God  as  transcendent,  immanent,  and  humanis- 
tic, and  also  that  those  religions  which  have  shut  out  any 
one  of  these  characteristics  from  their  idea  of  God  have  in 
turn  distorted  the  lives  of  their  followers.  Those  whose  God 
is  transcendent  merely,  a  distant  monarch  speaking  his  will 
amid  the  thunders  of  Sinai,  such  a  God  as  the  English  Puri- 
tans and  the  modern  Germans  conceived  of,  tend  inevitably 
themselves  to  become  cold  and  heartless  and  cruel.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Buddhist,  believing  in  a  God  who  is  imman- 
ent only,  becomes  a  dreamer,  a  quietist,  looking  for  no 
greater  bliss  than  total  extinction,  or  absorption  into  the 
divine,  impersonal  essence  of  the  universe. 

In  like  manner,  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  the  cor- 
ollary of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  expresses  the  belief 
that  God  not  only  may  be  described  in  terms  of  perfect  hu- 
manity, but  that  he  has  actually  so  manifested  himself.  The 
doctrine  was  evolved, — so  to  speak,  forced  upon  the  con- 
sciousness of  Christendom, — as  the  only  tenable  explanation 


THE  RELEVANCY  OF  RELIGION  139 

of  the  facts  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Behold,  now,  how  it  reacts 
again  upon  the  lives  of  those  in  whose  minds  it  is  accepted. 
It  softens  for  us  the  austerity  of  the  Hebrew  idea  of  God 
and  the  cruelty  of  the  Mohammedan  idea.  Beyond  a  doubt 
the  career  of  the  barbaric  Germans  who  conquered  imperial 
Rome  would  have  been  vastly  different  had  they  been  fol- 
lowers of  Mohammed.  Unquestionably,  the  ideal  of  the 
gentle  Jesus  did  much  to  tame  them  and  to  hasten  the  res- 
toration of  Europe. 

Nor  is  the  force  of  this  ideal  by  any  means  exhausted. 
Well  does  Nietzsche,  to  whom  the  ethics  of  Christians  are 
an  abomination,  seek  by  ridicule  and  invective  to  discredit 
their  Master.  There  is  ho  hope  for  his  ethics  of  force  so 
long  as  Jesus  remains  the  ideal.  It  is  not  by  accident  that 
Christendom,  with  all  its  faults  and  with  its  many  failures 
to  live  up  to  its  ideal,  has  led  the  world  in  works  of  mercy 
and  charity. 

When,  now,  the  inquiry  concerns  present  day  differences 
of  belief  within  Christendom  itself,  between  its  two  great 
systems,  we  discern  an  equally  close  analogy  between  belief 
and  conduct.  The  differences  in  doctrine  do  bear  fruit  in 
corresponding  differences  in  practice.  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  draw  odious  comparisons,  or  to  allot  to  either  system 
unqualified  praise  or  blame.  In  neither  system  is  the  issue 
clear-cut;  in  each  we  find  a  group  of  beliefs,  of  some  of 
which  we  may  approve  and  some  of  which  we  may  disap- 
prove. Yet,  by  and  large,  we  may  distinguish  between  Cath- 
olics and  Protestants  in  their  conceptions  of  the  Church,  and 
of  sacraments. 

The  Catholic  regards  the  Church  as  a  divine  organism, 
possessing  a  sanction  beyond  that  of  the  will  of  the  indi- 
vidual members,  while  to  the  Protestant  the  Church  is  a 
voluntary  association  of  individuals.  The  result  of  these 
beliefs  is  that,  while  we  find  in  the  Protestant  Churches  a 
constant  tendency  to  split,  in  the  Catholic  world  schisms 
have  come  only  through  explosions  which  have  shaken  the 
Church  to  its  very  base.  Individually,  the  Protestant  will 
change  his  aflSliation  with  the  greatest  facility,  while  the 
Catholic  will  cling  to  his  through  thick  and  thin.  An  ag- 
nostic from  Protestantism  will  regard  the  Christian  faith 


140  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

with  easy-going  tolerance,  while  the  former  Catholic  will 
repudiate  it  with  bitter  hatred.  This  devotion  to  the 
Church  as  an  institution  makes  for  tremendous  efficiency 
in  the  Catholic  system,  an  efficiency  which,  however,  seems 
to  'be  overdone  when  it  develops  into  the  absolutism  of  the 
Roman  Church. 

Similarly,  the  greater  weight  which  the  Catholic  at- 
taches to  the  sacraments  colors  his  whole  life.  It  is 
apparent  in  the  increased  devotion  and  reverence  to  be 
observed  in  his  churches,  where,  as  says  Pratt  in  his  Re- 
ligious Consciousness,  one  realizes  that  the  worshipers  feel 
that  something  Is  really  being  done  between  themselves  and 
God.  It  sometimes  seems  that,  while  the  Catholic  is  in 
danger  of  seeking  for  God  nowhere  but  in  church,  the 
Protestant  is  in  the  opposite  danger  of  seeking  God  every- 
where in  general  and  finding  Him  nowhere.  So  we  find 
that  in  their  works  of  charity,  though  both  equally  abound, 
their  methods  are  entirely  different.  The  Protestant  is  apt 
to  subordinate  the  religious  element  in  his  welfare  work, 
the  Catholic  to  accentuate  it.  In  the  Protestant  hospital 
are  white-uniformed  nurses,  in  the  Catholic  black-habited 
nuns. 

Specific  religious  beliefs  do  affect  and  color  our  con- 
duct tremendously.  In  the  religious  synthesis  of  the  fu- 
ture we  must  have  both  the  loyalty  and  spirituality  of  the 
Catholic  and  the  sturdy  independence  of  the  Protestant. 

When  all  is  said  and  done,  however,  the  value  to  the  in- 
dividual or  to  society,  of  religion,  or  of  any  particular  re- 
ligious doctrine,  cannot  be  determined  by  dissecting  it  under 
the  microscope.  As  Bergson  points  out,  we  can  get  no  ade- 
quate knowledge  of  life  except  from  within  life.  Religion 
is  either  a  vital  process  or  it  is  nothing  at  all.  How  is  one 
to  determine  the  effect  of  Christianity  on  society  unless 
society  lives  it;  and  this  experiment  has  never  been  made. 
How  is  one  to  determine  the  effect  of  Christianity  upon 
the  individual  unless  he  tries  the  experiment  upon  him- 
self; and  this  experiment  he  can  and  should  make.  Only 
so  can  he  be  true  to  the  scientific  spirit. 

I  mean  by  this  experiment  not  only  a  conformance  to 
the  ethical  standards  of  Christianity,  but  a  provisional  ac- 


TEE  RELEVANCY  OF  RELWION  141 

ceptance  of  each  and  every  doctrine,  no  matter  how  unreas- 
onable they  may  appear.  Above  all,  I  mean,  to  act  upon 
them :  to  practice  prayer  in  the  attitude  that  the  prayer 
will  be  answered ;  to  attend  upon  the  Eucharist  in  the  at- 
titude that  Christ  is  really  present  therein;  to  observe 
Good  Friday  in  the  attitude  that  Christ  did  really  die  and 
that  in  some  way  our  own  sin  was  concerned  in  that 
death;  to  celebrate  Easter  in  the  attitude  that  Christ 
did  really  rise  from  the  dead  and  that  in  some  way  He  has 
broken  the  power  of  sin  and  death  and  enabled  us  like- 
wise to  conquer  them.  I  say,  is  it  not  the  only  fair  thing 
to  do,  to  give  Christianity  a  trial,  a  thorough  trial ;  not 
merely  to  dabble  in  it,  but  to  throw  oneself  into  its  very 
life  for  a  space  of  time,  say  for  a  year ;  to  accept  provision- 
ally all  its  doctrines  as  true  and  to  enter  into  its  devotional 
life  as  if  they  were  true. 

If  then,  at  the  end  of  the  allotted  time,  Christianity 
should  still  seem  to  be  false  or  irrelevant,  the  experiment 
would  have  been  at  least  well  worth  trying.  The  outcome 
of  the  experiment,  however,  if  it  is  made  in  good  faith,  is 
not  likely  to  be  disappointing. 


DOGMA. 

When  Pilate,  on  trial  before  Jesus,  seeking  to  justify 
himself,  propounded  the  riddle,  "What  is  Truth?"  he  voiced 
a  question  as  old  as  the  human  mind.  The  ansv/ers  have 
been  many,  yet  each  fresh  insight  into  the  scheme  of  things 
propounds  the  question  anew,  and  no  answer  has  ever  re- 
mained undisputed.  For  to  answer  this  question  correctly 
involves,  not  only  finding  the  Truth,  but  knowing  it  when 
we  have  found   it. 

During  the  past  century  this  question  has  been  asked 
again,  perhaps  with  more  insistence  than  ever  before.  The 
skeptics,  which  class  includes  not  only  agnostics,  but  also 
those  who  rely  on  religious  authority,  have  given  up  the 
quest  as  a  vain  undertaking.  But  the  rest  of  us  are  still 
convinced  that  it  ought  to  be  possible  to  give  a  reason  for 
the  faith  that  is  in  us.  And  because  theology  in  these  lat- 
ter days  has  not  always  had  an  answer  ready,  she  has 
seemed  to  be  discredited. 

The  trouble  with  theology  has  been  that  s^ie  inherited 
from  Thomas  Aquinas  the  theory  that  the  world  is  divided 
into  two  kingdoms,  the  kingdom  of  Nature  and  the  kingdom 
of  Grace.  God,  to  be  sure,  reigned  in  each.  But,  while  he 
ruled  the  kingdom  of  Grace  in  person,  he  had  let  out  the 
kingdom  of  Nature,  after  creating  it,  to  his  vicegerent, 
Natural  Law.  Man  lay  on  the  border  between  the  two,  his 
body  in  one,  his  soul  in  the  other.  Yet  that  boundary  was 
perfectly  distinct. 

Such  a  theory  worked  admirably  in  the  tidy  little  world 
in  which  Aquinas  found  himself.  On  one  hand  it  gave 
seemingly  unlimited  scope  for  scientific  investigation,  while 
on  the  other  hand  it  set  free  the  religious  consciousness  to 
soar  to  heights  limited  by  no  trammels  of  human  reason. 
This  Kingdom  of  Grace  was  not  by  any  means  lawless. 
It  was   governed,   however,   not  by  Natural   Law,   but  by 


DOOM  A  143 

the  direct  fiat  of  the  Almighty,  as  revealed  in  the  Bible 
and  Church,  a  fiat  answerable  neither  to  human  reason 
nor  human  conscience. 

The  only  trouble  was  that  no  sooner  had  Aquinas  laid 
out  these  kingdoms  than  men  began  moving  the  boundary 
posts.  The  first  scattered  squads  of  invaders  did  not  greatly 
tax  the  prisons  of  the  Holy  Ofl5ce;  but  before  long  the 
scientists  began  coming  over  by  regiments.  First  this  out- 
post and  then  that  one  gave  way ;  and  the  history  of  theology 
in  the  past  five  hundred  years  has  been  one  of  prolonged 
retreat.  With  every  stronghold  which  they  defended  the 
theologians  have  insisted  that,  if  this  be  given  up,  re- 
ligion falls.  Small  wonder  if  people  at  last  began  to  take 
them  at  theiT  word. 

The  past  half  century  has  been  a  period  of  bewilderment ; 
the  nouveaux  riches  of  science  have  sometimes  indulged  in 
wilful  image-breaking ;  while  the  nouveaux  pauvres  of  theo- 
logy have  been  feverishly  cutting  over  their  old  clothes, 
trying  to  make  them  hold  out  over  the  winter.  The  result 
has  been  a  chaos  of  intellectual  and,  what  is  worse,  of 
moral,  values. 

The  friends  of  religion  were  at  a  loss.  Each  new  pro- 
nouncement of  science  seemed  to  deal  them  another  blow. 
They  knew  not  where  to  stand.  One  held  to  this  theory, 
another  to  that.  The  preachers  finally  gave  it  up.  When 
half  of  their  congregations  believed  that  their  grandfathers 
were  monkeys  and  the  other  half  were  equally  assured  that 
they  were  descended  from  clay  images,  it  was  obviously 
diflScult  to  preach  a  satisfactory  sermon  on  the  Creation. 
If  these  opinions  could  have  been  segregated  in  separate 
denominations,  the  case  might  have  been  more  tolerable; 
at  least  the  mud-slinging  might  have  gone  on  in  the  time- 
honored  way  across  ecclesiastical  fences.  But  this  new  align- 
ment cut  straight  across  all  the  Christian  bodies.  So  the 
preachers  concluded  that  the  pews  no  longer  cared  for  their 
doctrinal  sermons ;  a  conclusion  in  which  there  was  much 
practical  wisdom,  but  which  w^as  always  exactly  half  true. 

Out  of  this  chaos  a  new  synthesis  has  been  gradually 
shaping.  It  has  become  apparent  that  it  is  fatuous  to  deny 
the  legitimate  conclusions  of  science.    It  is  equally  apparent 


144  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

that,  despite  all  mishandling  by  foes  and  friends,  religion 
is  still  very  muda  alive  and  must  be  taken  into  account  in 
the  scheme  of  things.  The  kingdoms  of  the  Angelic  Doctor 
have  been  frankly  abandoned.  It  has  come  to  be  seen  that 
God  and  Nature  are  not  mutually  exclusive;  that  Nature 
is  not  godless,  nor  God  unnatural.  The  facts  of  religion 
are  in  nowise  impunged,  only  our  ways  of  explaining  them. 
Since  the  turn  of  the  century  we  have  achieved  a  new 
orientation  both  of  science  and  theology.  For  the  first  time 
in  ten  centuries  they  talk  the  same  language. 

The  outlines  of  this  new  synthesis  have  now  been  fairly 
well  established.  Yet,  strangely  enough,  the  preachers  seem 
to  be  reluctant  to  proclaim  it.  This  is  not  by  reason  of  any 
lack  of  sympathy  with  the  new  viewpoint,  as  most  of  them 
will  frankly  admit  in  private.  It  seems  to  be  rather  for 
fear  of  unsettling  the  convictions  of  those  in  their  flocks 
who  have  been  trained  in  the  old  notions.  Reversing  the 
advice  of  Saint  [Paul,  they  feed  milk  to  the  aged.  For  this 
excess  of  caution  there  was  much  reason  fifty  years  ago. 
There  is  none  today.  The  generation  coming  up  refuses  to 
be  bottle-fed. 

For  five  hundred  years  the  Church  has  been  on  the  de- 
fensive. In  every  divinity  school  it  has  taught  apologetics. 
Its  defenders  have  struck  valiant  blows;  but  they  have 
fought  like  men  with  their  backs  to  the  wall.  Now,  at 
last,  it  is  on  the  offensive.  The  champions  of  the  new  or- 
thodoxy write  with  a  vigor  and  reality  and  self-assurance 
as  refreshing  as  a  cold  plunge  after  a  tepid  bath.  They 
have  rediscovered  the  origin  and  sanction  of  dogma.  They 
have  demonstrated  that  dogma  is  not  something  imparted 
arbitrarily  by  authority,  as  to  which  the  consequences  of 
disbelief  are  to  be  felt  mostly  in  the  world  to  come;  and 
they  have  demonstrated  that  dogma  is  evolved  to  classify 
and  explain  the  facts  of  religious  experience.  Dogma,  as 
has  been  said  by  W.  G.  Peck,  is  dominating  conviction; 
and,  like  any  profound  conviction,  it  flowers  naturally 
forth  in  human  conduct.  In  short,  a  dogma  is  not  a  fiat, 
but  a  formula. 


THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY. 

Imagine,  if  you  will,  a  telephone  operator,  housed  up 
from  birth  in  a  little  room  with  neither  door  nor  window. 
All  day  the  messages  come  in  over  the  wires  from  every  part 
of  her  city.  Sometimes  the  messages  give  her  bits  of  in- 
formation, not  requiring  action  on  her  part ;  they  tell  her  of 
a  beautiful  river,  a  tree,  or  a  band  playing,  or  perchance 
they  describe  the  outside  of  the  exchange,  how  the  wires 
are  carried  and  what  sort  of  instruments  are  at  the  other 
end  of  the  line.  Sometimes  they  tell  her  of  a  fire,  and  these 
she  connects  with  the  fire  department  and  orders  it  to  the 
scene.  Perhaps  a  murder  is  being  committed,  and  she  calls 
out  the  police. 

But  she  does  much  more  than  receive  and  transmit  mes- 
sages, for  hers  is  no  automatic  telephone.  Of  every  message 
the  operator  keeps  a  copy,  which  she  files  in  a  pigeon-hole 
in  which  are  other  like  messages. 

Herein  is  a  parable  of  ourselves.  Our  information  of 
the  outside  world  all  comes  to  us  over  our  nerves.  These 
sense  impressions  we  call  percepts.  We  take  their  word 
for  it  as  to  what  is  going  on  in  the  world.  When  the  mes- 
sages come  in  which  call  for  any  activity,  we  send  out 
orders  over  the  wire.  We  relate  all  our  percepts  with 
similar  percepts  received  in  the  past  and  out  of  them  we 
abstract  the  part  which  we  deem  essential.  This  abstract 
image,  or  concept,  we  file  away  in  the  memory,  along  with 
previous  similar  concepts.  For  instance,  I  see  a  piece  of 
cloth  with  red  and  White  stripes  and  with  white  stars  on  a 
blue  field.  I  do  not  remember  all  the  little  details  as  to 
material,  texture  and  color;  I  relate  this  percept  of  a  piece 
of  cloth  to  other  similar  percepts  stored  in  my  memory, 
which  I  have  called  flags,  and  so  I  remember  it. 


146  GRAMMAR  OP  BELIEF 

The  outside  world,  as  it  is  made  up  for  me,  consists  in 
the  sum  total  of  these  concepts. 

I  distinguish  between  concepts  in  several  ways.  I  dis- 
tinguish between  those  which  are  simultaneous ;  and  the 
measure  of  their  distinctness  I  call  space.  I  distinguish 
between  those  which  are  not  simultaneous ;  and  the  meas- 
ure of  their  distinctness  1  call  time.  I  arrange  them  in 
groups  and  call  the  groups  phenomena.  I  note  that  some 
groups  always  follow  other  groups ;  and  I  call  the  precedent 
group  cause  and  the  subsequent  group  effect. 

To  return  to  our  telephone  operator.  She  is  never  indif- 
ferent to  the  messages  that  come  in.  Every  message  affects 
her.  One  makes  her  glad,  another  makes  her  sad.  One 
gives  her  pleasure,  another  pain.  Some  make  her  very 
angry.  Now  and  then,  when  she  gets  angry  enough,  she 
pulls  out  the  plug  and  refuses  to  answer  any  more  calls  on 
the  offending  line.  Sometimes,  when  business  is  dull,  she 
falls  to  musing  as  to  what  the  messages  really  mean,  whether 
her  informants  are  telling  her  the  truth,  how  she  came 
there,  what  the  exchange  is  for,  and  whether,  if  it  is  des- 
troyed, she  is  going  to  come  out  alive.  In  musing  thus  she 
takes  account,  not  only  of  what  the  messages  tell  her  of 
the  outside  world,  but  of  what  she  knows  of  the  inside  of 
the  exchange  and  of  how  she  works.  In  other  words,  she 
constructs  a  philosophy  of  life. 

Now,  in  any  philosophy  of  life  it  should  be  noted,  first 
of  all,  that  I  have  information  of  myself,  both  from  the  in- 
side and  from  the  outside.  For  example,  a  snake  lies  be- 
fore me  and  1  reach  out  and  touch  it.  I  see  the  snake  and  I 
see  and  feel  the  motion  of  my  hand  through  the  air  and  then 
I  feel  the  snake.  So  much  I  know  of  my  action  from  the  out- 
side. But  that  is  only  half  the  story.  I  am  also  aware  of 
willing,  or  intending,  the  motion  of  my  arm ;  and,  when 
my  hand  touches  the  snake,  I  am  aware  of  a  feeling  of  fear 
and  of  loathing.    These  things  I  know  from  the  inside  only. 

Of  the  two  aspects  of  reality  the  inside  is  the  more 
intimate.  I  know  my  conscious  mental  processes  immediately. 
In  fact  these  processes  only  possess  for  me  absolute  logical 
certitude.      The  outside   world   I   can   never   know   except 


THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY  147 

through  the  sense  impressions  that  come  to  me.  It  is  logi- 
cally impossible  to  prove  that  I  am  not  the  whole  of  the 
universe.  I  know,  furthermore,  that  my  senses  are  incom- 
plete and  often  contradictory.  For  example,  a  rapidly  re- 
volving wheel  appears  to  have  nothing  hetween  the  rim 
and  the  hub,  but  my  sense  of  touch  reveals  the  existence 
of  spokes.  There  are  waves  of  light  and  sound  beyond 
those  that  affect  my  eye  and  ear;  1  cannot  perceive  the 
waves  used  in  wireless  telegraphy;  and  I  know  that  the 
dog's  sense  of  smell  is  more  acute  than  mine.  I,  however, 
make  the  assumption  that  there  is  an  objective  Something 
behind  the  sense  impressions  and  that  what  they  tell  me 
is  valid  as  far  as  it  goes.  Such  an  assumption  is  perfectly 
legitimate;  yet,  it  is,  after  all,  an  act  of  faith. 

My  sense  impressions  tell  me,  among  other  things,  of  the 
existence  of  other  human  bodies,  who  appear  to  conduct 
themselves  as  I  conduct  myself.  I  have,  therefore,  the 
right  to  assume,  and  I  do  assume,  that  if  1  could  get  inside 
of  them,  I  should  find  that  the  inside  view  of  them  cor- 
responds to  the  inside  view  of  myself,  or  rather  that  their 
inner  aspect  bears  the  same  relation  to  their  outer  aspect 
as  does  mine.  Here  again  I  make  an  act  of  faith  which 
is  i^erfectly  legitimate. 

Yet,  while  I  may  and  ought  to  believe  in  the  existence 
of  the  outside  universe,  and  reason  about  it,  I  must  reason 
from  the  inside  out  and  not  from  the  outside  in.  To  re- 
sume the  picture  of  the  telephone  girl,  she  must  begin  with 
what  she  herself  knows  of  the  inside  of  the  exchange,  not 
what  someone  tells  her  over  the  wires. 

The  first  thing  to  observe  about  myself  is  that  1  never 
receive  any  message  with  indifference.  It  makes  me  glad 
or  sad,  it  gives  me  pleasure  or  pain,  comfort  or  discomfort. 
This  effect,  in  the  lingo  of  the  psychologist,  is  affection. 
The  message  has  this  effect,  not  alone  by  reason  of  what 
it  contains,  but  by  reason  of  what  I  myself  am.  A  beauti- 
ful piece  of  music  tiirills  me  with  pleasure.  Yet  there  is 
nothing,  intrinsically,  in  a  certain  series  of  vibrations  to 
account  for  this  effect,  and  I  should  be  hard  put  to  it  to 
explain  just  what  there  was  in  the  music  which  gives  me 


148  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

this  emotion.  This  inherent  tendency,  or  set,  of  the  mind, 
which  is  the  subjective  factor  in  psychological  affection, 
we  will,  for  want  of  a  better  name,  call  a  "sense". 

I  find,  first  of  all,  that  I  have  a  very  strongly  developed 
sense  for  self-preservation.  If  I  shonld  be  chained  to  the 
railroad  track,  a  train  bearing  down  upon  me  would  cause 
not  only  discomfort,  but  abject  terror. 

I  have,  also,  a  sense  for  love,  a  tendency  to  want  com- 
panionship, a  desire  to  have  others  like  me,  and  an  equally 
strong  desire  to  like  others.  This  sense  is  fully  as  strong 
as  the  sense  for  self-preservation.  Indeed,  in  the  mother 
it  frequently  overpowers  the  sense  for  self-preservation  and 
she  willingly  and  gladly  courts  death  for  the  sake  of  her 
offspring. 

Closely  akin  to  the  sense  for  love,  perhaps  a  corollary 
of  it,  is  the  sense  for  loyalty.  Man  is,  we  say,  a  social  crea- 
ture. He  is  incomplete  without  the  give  and  take  of  asso- 
ciation with  his  fellows.  "He  that  saveth  his  life  shall 
lose  it;  and  he  that  loseth  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find 
it."  Man  evaluates  his  fellows  largely  by  this  standard. 
All  the  world  loathes  a  traitor. 

The  next  item  of  mental  baggage  of  which  I  take  note 
is  a  sense  for  rationality,  the  urge  or  tendency  to  arrange 
my  concepts  in  logical  sequence  of  cause  and  effect.  I  have 
an  inherent  abhorrence  of  a  helter-skelter  universe.  I  will 
not  rest  for  long  content,  as  has  been  said,  with  mere  cos- 
mic weather. 

I  find  also  a  sense  for  activity,  an  impulse  to  do  something 
about  my  world.  The  matter  cannot  be  better  stated  than 
has  been  done  by  William  James  in  his  Sentiment  of  Ration- 
ality : 

"It  is  far  too  little  realized  how  entirely  the  intellect 
is  built  up  of  practical  interests.  The  theory  of  evolution 
is  beginning  to  do  very  good  service  by  its  reduction  of 
all  mentality  to  the  type  of  reflex  action.  Cognition,  in  this 
view,  is  but  a  fleeting  moment,  a  cross  section  at  a  certain 
point  of  what  in  its  totality  is  a  motor  phenomenon.  In 
the  lower  forms  of  life  no  one  will  pretend  that  cognition 
<s  anything  more  than  a  guide  to  appropriate  action.    The 


THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY  149 

germinal  question  concerning  things  brought  for  the  first 
time  before  consciousness  is  not  the  theoretic  'What  is 
that?'  but  the  practical  'Who  goes  there?'  or  rather,  as 
Horwicz  has  admirably  put  it,  'What  is  to  be  done?' — 
'Wa8  fang'  ich  an?' — In  all  our  discussions  about  the  in- 
telligence of  lower  animals,  the  only  thing  that  we  use  is 
that  of  their  acting  as  if  for  a  purpose.  Cognition,  in  short, 
is  incomplete  until  discharged  in  act;  and  although  it  is 
true  that  the  later  mental  development,  which  attains  its 
maximum  through  the  hypertrophied  cerebrum  of  man, 
gives  birth  to  a  vast  amount  of  theoretic  activity  over  and 
above  that  which  is  immediately  ministerial  to  practice, 
yet  the  earlier  claim  is  only  postponed,  not  effaced,  and  the 
active  nature  asserts  its  rights  to  the  end. 

"When  the  cosmos  in  its  totality  is  the  object  offered  to 
consciousness,  the  relation  is  in  no  whit  altered.  React  on 
it  we  must  in  some  congenial  way.  It  was  a  deep  instinct 
in  Schopenhauer  which  led  him  to  reinforce  his  pessimistic 
argumentation  by  a  running  volley  of  invective  against  the 
practical  man  and  his  requirements.  No  hope  for  pessimism 
unless  he  is  slain !" 

Let  us  go  behind  the  scenes  of  this  Punch-and-Judy 
show  of  ours  once  more.  We  find  another  sprite  pulling  on 
the  wires, — a  sense  for  purpose.  When  the  savage  in  the 
jungle  sees  a  bough  suddenly  waving,  he  not  only  asks, 
"Who  goes  there?"  and  "What  shall  I  do?"  but  "What  is  it 
doing  that  for?"  Our  primitive  ancestors  all  asked  this 
question;  and  it  was  by  virtue  thereof  that  they  got  to  be 
our  ancestors.  The  others  left  no  descendents ;  but  per- 
ished in  the  flower  of  their  youth.  And  so  we  steadfastly 
refuse  a  squirrel-cage  universe. 

If  I  have  not  wearied  you  with  this  analysis,  I  bid  you 
look  again  behind  the  scenes.  We  find  yet  another  sense,  the 
sense  for  right.  No  sooner  does  man  say,  "I  am,"  than  he 
begins  to  say,  "I  ought".  Coincidently  with  the  rise  of  self- 
consciousness  came  the  sense  of  responsibility.  From  the  gray 
drawn  of  history  man  beats  upon  his  breast  and  cries,  Pec- 
cavi.  The  taboo  of  the  African  savage,  like  the  Code  of 
Justinian,  is  an  answer  to  the  question,  "What  ought  I  to 


150  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

do?"  The  mental  tendency,  or  urge,  which  drives  us  to  ask 
this  question,  and  which  makes  us  uncomfortable  until  we 
have  answered  it,  is  the  sense  for  right. 

There  is  yet  another  sense  of  which  we  must  take  ac- 
count. And  here  I  would  give  you  a  story  told  by  William 
James  in  The  Dilemma  of  Determinism..  A  man,  he  says, 
was  recently  on  trial  for  murder  of  his  wife.  He  testified 
that  she  bored  him,  and  so  to  get  rid  of  her  he  inveigled  her 
into  a  desert  spot  and  shot  her  four  times.  As  she  lay  on 
the  ground  she  looked  up  to  him  and  said,  "You  didn't  do 
it  on  purpose,  did  you,  dear?"  "No,"  he  replied,  "I  didn't 
do  it  on  purpose,"  as  he  raised  a  rock  and  smashed  her 
skull.  The  prisoner,  said  James,  was  given  a  mild  sen- 
tence and  left  the  court-room  well  satisfied  with  himself. 

I  confess  that,  often  as  I  have  read  this  story,  I  can  not 
read  it  without  seeing  red.  I  have  an  insensate  desire  to 
go  out  and  find  that  man  and  put  an  end  to  his  miserable 
existence.  His  act,  and  even  the  telling  of  it,  seems  to 
blaspheme  all  that  I  hold  sacred.  Now,  why  does  such  a 
proceeding  create  in  us  a  red  rage?  Because  it  does  violence 
to  our  sense  for  justice. 

We  find  ourselves,  also,  with  a  tendency  to  look  up  to 
some  other  being,  human  or  supernatural,  as  an  ideal.  We 
want  always  to  be  pursuing  the  gleam.  It  bores  us  ever  to 
quite  arrive.  We  want  a  touch  of  awe  in  our  universe. 
What  may  I  call  this  but  a  sense  for  reverence? 

This  catalogue  does  not  by  any  means  exhaust  our  in- 
herent senses.  There  is,  for  example,  our  sense  for  beauty, 
that  mysterious  something  within  us  which  tunes  our  ear 
to  the  music  of  the  spheres,  and  which  has  baffled  all  at- 
temps  at  analysis.    But  that  sense  does  not  concern  us  here. 

Now,  it  should  be  noted  that  these  senses  are  not,  in 
themselves,  guides  of  conduct.  Our  sense  for  self-preserva- 
tion does  not,  for  instance,  tell  us  what  conduct  will  work 
for  the  well-being  of  the  organism.  We  have  no  infallible 
monitor  to  warn  us  against  lobster  salad  at  midnight.  That 
is  for  the  intellect  to  determine  by  the  method  of  trial  and 
error.  The  sense  for  self-preservation  simply  asks  the 
question  and  stands  over  us  till  we  answer  it.    The  case  is 


THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY  151 

not  otherwise  with  our  sense  for  right.  It  drives  us  to  ask 
of  every  act  of  ours,  "Ought  I?"  The  African  savage 
makes  one  answer,  the  Roman  lawyer  another.  The  signif- 
icant thing  is  the  question,  not  the  answer.  The  conscience 
is  not  a  judge.  It  is  rather  a  bailiff  who  brings  the  parties 
litigant  before  the  bar  of  the  intellect,  and  who,  when  the 
intellect  has  pronounced  judgment,  proceeds  to  enforce  it. 

Let  us  now  apply  these  ideas  to  our  philosophy.  Our 
datum  is,  as  we  have  seen,  the  percepts  that  come  flooding 
in  upon  us.  The  first  thing  we  do  to  these  percepts  is  to 
arrange  them.  Without  arrangement  we  could  not  even 
begin  to  remember  them.  Try  for  yourself  how  hard  it  is 
by  a  sheer  effort  of  memory  to  retain  and  recall  a  jumble 
of  unrelated  facts.  Our  memory  experts  tell  us  that  we  must 
associate  our  ideas.  We  'are  to  associate  the  name  of  Mr. 
Smith  with  his  fire  red  hair,  the  name  of  Mr.  Jones  with 
his  Roman  nose,  the  name  of  Mr.  Brown  with  that  old- 
fashioned  watch  fob  that  he  wears. 

But  we  not  only  seek  to  remember,  we  seek  to  under- 
stand. The  moment  we  seek  to  pass  from  Wissen  to 
Kennen,  the  moment  we  seek  to  understand  or  comprehend 
a  thing,  at  that  moment  we  begin  to  synthetize  it  by  identity 
with,  or  difference  from,  other  things. 

Now,  this  grouping,  whether  for  the  purpose  of  remem- 
bering or  for  the  purpose  of  understanding,  goes  on  congru- 
ently  with  one  or  other  of  these  senses  of  which  I  have 
been  speaking.  The  scientist  takes  the  results  of  his 
experiments.  He  feels  uneasy,  for  he  cannot  "understand" 
them,  which  is  to  say  that  they  do  not  fit  in  with  any  other 
facts;  they  do  not  satisfy  his  sense  for  rationality.  He 
tries  them  in  this  way  and  that  way;  he  turns  them  over 
and  about;  he  may  find  that  they  don't  belong  where  he 
thought  they  did,  or  that  he  will  have  to  rearrange  his  whole 
series  to  accommodate  them.  At  last,  however,  they  fit 
snugly  with  the  other  facts  of  his  experience  in  a  rational 
series  of  cause  and  effect.  A  bell  rings  somewhere  within 
him ;  he  now  "understands"  his  fact,  and  his  sense  for  ra- 
tionality is  satisfied. 

So  with  the  lover.  His  fair  one  is  coy.  Yesterday  she 
wrote  to  him.    To-day  she  refuses  his  invitation  to  a  dance. 


152  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

He  turns  all  these  things  over  in  his  mind ;  she  loves  me, 
she  loves  me  not.  He  rests  not  till  he  knows  her  ansv^rer. 
All  other  judgments  are  suspended.  What  care  I,  says  he, 
how  fair  she  be,  if  she  be  not  fair  to  me.  And  if,  at  last, 
she  bids  him  hope,  the  stars  of  heaven  sing  for  joy.  If  per- 
chance, she  refuses  his  suit,  does  he  thereby  conclude  that 
there  is  no  reality  which  corresi)onds  with  his  sense  for 
love?  Perhaps,  for  a  time;  but  not  for  long.  Regretfully 
he  turns  his  back  and  goes  on  searching,  inveterate  lover 
that  he  is,  sure  that  somewhere,  somehow,  the  universe 
holds  for  him  a  love  that  answers  his.  And  when  he  finds 
that  love,  as  surely  he  will  if  he  pursues  his  quest,  the  bell 
rings,  and  he,  like  the  scientist,  is  content,  for  he  has  satis- 
fied his  sense  for  love. 

Why  is  it,  as  I  have  said,  that  the  human  race  has  from 
age  to  age  mulled  over  the  problem  of  evil  ?  There  is  no  prob- 
lem of  good.  It  is  because  we  expect  the  universe  to  be  good 
and  not  bad.  Yet  why  should  we  expect  this?  Solely  be- 
cause a  universe  inherently  bad  does  violence  to  our  sense 
for  right  and  our  sense  for  justice. 

But,  it  may  be  said,  you  are  making  man  the  measure  of 
all  things.  Yes,  frankly,  I  am,  for  I  have  no  other  measuring 
rod.  Aut  Caesar,  aut  nullus.  The  only  alternative  is  in- 
tellectual nullity.  "But,"  say  you,  "there  is  the  external  uni- 
verse ;  why  not  use  it  for  the  measuring  rod ;  here  at  least 
you  have  objective  reality  and  are  not  dependent  on  sub- 
jective ideas."  Please  go  back  now  with  me  to  the  begin- 
ning and  recall  that  all  we  know  of  the  outside  universe  is 
our  sense  impressions.  Remember  that  there  is  no  logical 
refutation  of  solipsism,  and  that  we  have  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  there  is  an  objective  reality  behind  these 
sense  impressions  by  an  act  of  sheer  faith.  Now  just  for  a 
moment  let  me  ask  you  why  we  make  this  act  of  faith : 
why  not  remain  in  solitary  grandeur,  the  monarch  of  all 
we  survey.  Simply  because,  like  Alexander  Selkirk,  we 
find  solitude  intolerable,  it  violates  our  sense  for  love.  Also 
because  w^e  find  inactivity  intolerable.  We  want  something 
to  push  against.  A  universe  that  does  not  hit  back  violates 
our  sense  for  activity. 

And  so  you  make  the  assumption  that  there  is  an  out- 


THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY  153 

side  universe  and  that  it  will  be  found  to  satisfy  our  sense 
for  rationality.  But,  having  called  it  into  being  in  order  to 
satisfy  certain  mental  tendencies,  you  can  not  logically  stop 
there.  It  is  all  or  none.  I  Insist  that  we  should  reject  as 
false,  or  at  least  as  incomplete,  any  explanation  of  phe- 
nomena which  violates  our  sense  for  right,  or  for  justice, 
or  for  love,  or  for  reverence,  just  as  we  reject  an  explana- 
tion  which   violates   our    sense   for   rationality. 

But,  you  say,  you  are  reasoning  with  a  shovel.  You 
have  lumped  together  all  sorts  of  things  and  called  them 
"senses,"  you  have  got  primary,  congenital  instincts  and  ac- 
quired characteristics  all  together  in  one  category.  1 
might  counter  by  asking  you,  what  is  an  instinct.  But  I 
won't  stop  over  verbal  niceties,  because  the  fundamental 
difficulty  is  that  you  have  grabbed  up  the  wrong  yard- 
stick again.  You  persist  in  measuring  my  mental  tendencies 
by  the  external  universe.  This  leads  you  round  and  round 
in  a  circle. 

In  my  childhood  I  was  much  impressed  with  the  fable  of 
a  snake  that  ate  up  everything  in  sight.  Finally,  when  all 
other  provender  failed,  the  snake  began  on  his  own  tail 
and  continued  until  he  had  eaten  himself  up. 

Now  that  is  exactly  the  case  with  the  materialistic  phi- 
losopher. 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  in  any  system  of  philos- 
ophy you  have  got  to  start  somewhere.  I  prefer  to  proceed 
from  the  known  to  the  unknown ;  from  the  thinker  to  the 
thing  thought  about.  So  it  makes  no  whit  of  difference  at 
what  stage  these  mental  tendencies  of  ours  have  arisen,  or 
whether  they  are  simple  or  composite.  Of  course,  you 
can't  box  off  the  mental  life  into  this  or  that  cubby-hole, 
and  speak  of  a  sense  for  right  as  distinct,  for  Instance, 
from  the  sense  for  justice.  The  divisions  are  arbitrary,  just 
as  are  all  categories  of  science  or  philosophy;  but  they  do 
in  the  main  describe  our  mental  equipment.  I  take  the  nor- 
mal, adult  human  being  as  I  find  him. 

But,  says  the  materialist,  why  take  the  adult;  why  not 
take  the  child?  You  do  not  find  all  your  "senses"  in  the 
child.  To  this  I  would  reply,  in  the  first  place,  wiiy  stop 
at  the  child?    Why  not  go  back  to  the  embryo,  to  the  germ, 


154  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

back  further  yet  to  the  ancestor,  and  so  on  and  on.  Useful 
as  the  study  of  origins  may  be,  there  are  many  fields  in 
which  it  is  of  no  assistance.  The  oyster  does  not  tell  me 
much  about  my  soul.  We  judge  the  mind,  as  says  William 
James  in  his  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  by  its  fruits, 
not  by  its  roots. 

I  would  make  further  reply  to  the  materialist  with  a  tu 
quoque.  If  the  sense  for  love,  for  right,  or  for  justice,  are 
developed  during  life  under  the  stimulus  of  the  environment, 
so  also  is  the  sense  for  rationality  and  even  the  sense  for 
self-preservation.  The  infant  has  no  fear,  nor  any  tendency 
to  avoid  that  which  will  injure  him.  On  the  contrary,  any 
father  of  children  will  tell  you  that  they  seem  to  have  a 
positive  mania  for  self-destruction,  and  have  to  be  watched 
constantly  to  keep  them  from  doing  away  with  themselves. 
The  child  develops  a  sense  for  love  probably  before  the 
sense  for  self-preservation  and  certainly  before  the  sense 
for  rationality.  That  sense  is,  in  fact,  among  the  last  to  ap- 
pear upon  the  scene. 

To  be  sure,  our  mental  tendencies  develop  during  life. 
It  would  be  too  much  to  expect  that  we,  like  Athene,  should 
spring  full  armed  from  the  brain  of  our  parent.  But  if 
modern  biology  has  taught  us  anything,  it  has  taught  us 
that  all  the  great  mainsprings  of  conduct  correspond  to  a 
mysterious  potentiality  inherent  in  the  very  germ.  There 
is  no  plant  but  was  seed.  If  we  innately  lacked  the  capacity 
for  love  or  reverence,  no  training  could  put  it  there.  There 
are,  in  the  modern  garden,  no  trees  of  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil.  Anyhow,  I,  for  one,  cannot  but  feel  that 
the  very  fact  that  our  spiritual  equipment  has  been  shaped 
in  the  rough  and  tumble  with  environment,  makes  it  a 
worthy  instrument  whereby  to  take  account  of  that  en- 
vironment. 

Returning  to  the  fray,  your  materialist  will  contend  that 
we  have  no  right  to  use  liiese  senses  as  a  measuring  stick, 
because  they  vary  in  different  individuals  and  are  in  some 
individuals  lacking  in  part,  and  we  have  no  philosophical 
bureau  of  standards.  Here,  of  course,  he  is  in  a  measure 
right.  It  is  precisely  because  of  this  that  we  have  these 
differences  in  systems  of  philosophy.     It  is  because  some 


THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY  155 

men  deliberately  throw  away  one  or  all  of  ttie  measuring 
sticks  that  they  arrive  at  different  conclusions.  But  should 
we,  for  that,  throw  them  all  away?  To  do  that  would  be  to 
abandon  all  philosophy,  even  the  materialistic,  and  to  say 
with  the  skeptic,  "I  doubt  even  that  I  doubt".  From  such 
mental  hara-kiri  the  Lord  deliver  us. 

The  fact  is  that  the  variations  in  mental  equipment  are 
not  so  great  as  our  materialist  imagines.  They  are  prob- 
ably not  so  great  as  the  variations  in  physical  equipment. 
Physical  color  blindness  is  at  least  as  common  as  mental; 
yet,  for  that,  we  do  not  refuse  the  evidence  of  our  senses. 
If  we  are  building  a  house,  we  do  not  wait  to  send  our 
foot-rule  to  Washington  and  our  compass  to  Annapolis  for 
correction.  The  business  of  our  eternal  salvation  presses; 
we  must  go  on  with  what  tools  we  have.  We  do,  however, 
get  rid  of  the  workmen  whose  measuring  rods  are  too 
far  at  variance  from  the  average.  Those  who  lack  the 
sense  for  rationality  we  confine  in  lunatic  asylums.  Those 
without   the   sense   for   right   and   for   justice  in   prisons. 

At  any  rate,  the  rationalist  need  not  in  this  respect  adopt 
an  air  of  superiority,  as  though  the  sense  for  rationality 
were  better  standardized  or  more  universal  than  the  sense 
for  right  or  justice.  The  lunatic  asylums  are  just  as  full 
as  the  prisons. 

There  is,  however,  another  aspect  of  Reality  of  which 
we  must  take  account.  The  universe,  whether  we  regard  it  as 
an  external  entity  or  as  a  procession  of  mental  images,  is 
not  supine.  It  hits  back.  If  I  go  into  a  dark  room,  not  know- 
ing that  a  chair  is  there,  I  crack  my  shins  on  it  nevertheless. 
Now  the  rationalist  claims  that  with  his  measuring  rod  he 
can  explore  the  universe  to  its  limits  and  find  his  way  back 
in  safety,  and  that  his  calculation  will  come  out  even; 
whereas  the  moralist  is  continually  cracking  his  shins  and 
finding  that  his  measuring  rods  are  incommensurate  with 
Reality. 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  however,  that  the  rationalist's 
measuring  rod  is  by  no  means  perfectly  commensurate  with 
Reality.  At  the  bottom  of  every  system  of  science  lies  an 
antinomy.  Take,  for  example,  the  concept  of  the  ether, 
which  was  hit  upon  to  explain  the  transmission  of  light. 


156  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

Light,  on  this  hypothesis,  is  conceived  as  waves  in  ether. 
Now,  since  light  is  transmitted  without  diminution  to  any 
distance,  however  great,  it  must  follow  that  the  medium  is 
perfectly  elastic,  that  is  to  say,  perfectly  rigid.  Any  sub- 
stance which  is  in  the  least  mushy  will  eventually  obliterate 
a  wave  motion.  Sound,  for  example,  does  not  travel  far, 
because  it  is  transmitted  through  the  air,  which  is  not  per- 
fectly elastic.  So,  then,  the  ether  must  be  more  rigid  than 
steel.  On  the  other  hand,  the  heavenly  bodies  in  passing 
through  the  ether  are  not  in  the  least  slowed  down,  there 
is  absolutely  no  friction.  Hence  the  ether  must  be  more 
tenuous  than  any  material  substance.  Take  an  example 
nearer  home.  There  is  a  relationship  between  bodily  states 
and  mental  states,  so  that  changes  in  consciousness  corres- 
pond to  changes  in  brain  structure.  Yet  no  rationalist  or 
materialist  can  in  the  least  translate  movements  of  atoms 
or  molecules  into  sight  or  hearing,  much  less  into  love  or 
hate.  The  rationalist  does  not,  however,  on  that  account 
throw  away  his  measuring  rod,  nor  ought  he;  but  he  uses 
it  so  far  as  he  can  and  seeks  ever  a  synthesis  in  which  at 
last  his  method  will  be  completely  justified.  Thus,  science 
ends,  as  it  began  in  an  act  of  faith. 

The  case  is  not  otherwise  with  religion.  The  moralist, 
like  the  rationalist,  comes  to  grief  right  often  in  exploring 
Reality.  He  finds  that  his  measuring  rods  will  not  always 
fit.  He  starts  out  to  find  a  good  universe  and  a  righteous 
universe  and  he  finds  much  sorrow  and  much  sin.  Not  so 
much,  however,  by  far,  as  the  pessimistic  school  would  have 
us  believe.  J.  Arthur  Thomson,  the  eminent  student  of 
comparative  biology,  in  his  recent  work  entitled  The  System 
of  Animate  Nature,  has  done  good  service  in  dispelling  the 
notion  that  nature  is  one  long  struggle  for  the  right  to  be, 
a  ruthless  fight  to  the  death.  Struggle,  indeed  we  do,  both 
brute  and  man.  But  who  wants  to  be  wafted  to  the  skies 
on  flowery  beds  of  ease?  And  more  often  than  not,  both 
with  brute  and  man, — and  increasingly  so  with  man, — the 
struggle,  as  Thomson  points  out,  is  merely  the  effort  of 
the  individual  to  adjust  himself  to  the  environment. 

The  religionist  proposes  remedies  for  this  maladjust- 
ment, which  he  bids  us  use,  confident  that  in  the  larger 


THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY  157 

synthesis,  which  must  include  the  Hereafter,  his  method 
will  find  justification.  And  so  religion,  like  science,  ends 
in  an  act  of  faith,  a  sublime  and  radiant  Sursum  corda. 

Reviewing  thus  material  phenomena  in  the  light  of  our 
religious  senses,  we  seem  to  come  inevitably  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  world  is  moral  and  hence  that  there  is  a 
God,  and  that  man  is  moral  and  hence  a  really  free  agent, 
and  that  there  is  a  life  eternal  to  redress  the  wrongs  in 
this.  These  and  other  doctrines  of  theism  would  seem  to 
be  established  by  a  correct  evaluation  of  material  phenom- 
ena alone. 

Religion,  however,  is,  or  claims  to  be,  much  more  than 
a  way  of  regarding  the  external  world.  It  claims  to  have 
data  of  its  own,  as  well  as  a  method,  distinct  from  science. 
It  asserts  that  it  has  an  insight  into  Reality,  a  religious 
experience.  It  aflirms,  not  only  that  God  is,  but  that  He 
is  the  rewarder  of  all  who  trust  in  Him. 

Now,  if  such  be  the  case,  the  religious  experiences  ought 
to  be  tested  and  analyzed  by  the  same  methods  which  are 
employed  by  science.  No  more  should  be  claimed  for  them 
than  the  evidence  warrants.  If  they  shall  prove  not  to  be 
capable  of  establishment,  religion  is  not  thereby  overthrown, 
since  it  rests  secure  upon  our  well-warranted  and  inherent 
tendency  to  find  a  religious  rationale  of  the  universe.  "We 
ought,  still,  to  say  with  Job,  "Though  He  slay  me,  yet  will  I 
trust  in  Him".  But  if  the  religious  experience  proves  to  be 
true,  it  furnishes  convincing  experimental  justification  of 
this  rationale. 

Without  examining  the  whole  field  of  religious  phenom- 
ena, let  us  confine  ourselves  to  the  experience  of  subjective 
answer  to  prayer,  which  is  crucial  to  the  whole  matter.  It 
will,  of  course,  be  agreed  on  all  sides  that  prayer  powerfully 
affects  the  one  who  prays.  It  gives  him  courage  and  clear- 
ness of  vision,  dispels  doubts  and  shows  him  a  way  out  of  an 
impasse  in  his  affairs ;  it  produces  within  him  a  sense  of 
the  immediate  presence  of  God ;  in  very  many  cases  it  cures 
a  bodily  ailment.  The  phenomena  of  religious  experience 
may  be  found  in  any  book  on  religious  psychology,  notably 
William  James,  Varieties  of  Religious  Experience,  George 
Albert  Ck>e,  The  Psychology  of  Religion,  and  James  B.  Pratt, 


158  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

The  Religious  Consciousness.  Wtiile  the  facts  are  not  in 
dispute,  they  are,  owing  to  their  subjective  nature,  peculiarly 
difficult  to  evaluate.  A  very  keen  analysis  has  been  made 
by  Will  Spens  in  his  lectures  entitled.  Belief  and  Practice, 
to  whom  I  am  very  largely  indebted  for  what  follows. 

There  is  one  very  obvious  difference  between  religious 
experience  and  the  physical  experiences  which  we  seek  to 
systematize  in  scientific  study.  If  you  go  into  a  dark  room 
you  will  knock  your  shins  against  a  chair,  which  happens  to 
be  there  in  your  path,  entirely  irrespective  of  your  belief 
as  to  the  existence,  presence,  and  nature  of  the  chair.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  effect  of  your  prayers,  or  of  your  parti- 
cipation in  the  sacraments,  is  very  largely  dependent  on  your 
expectations;  more  than  that,  it  is  not  probable  that  the 
effects  will  be  considerable  if  your  expectation  is  merely 
pragmatic.  You  will  probably  not  obtain  spiritual  benefit 
apart  from  some  ultimate  conception  as  to  the  basis  of  the 
benefit  On  that  distinction  has  been  based  the  charge  that 
religious  experience  is  simply  the  outcome  of  self-sugges- 
tion. The  facts  must,  therefore,  be  analyzed  to  determine 
whether  they  display  elements  which  can  not  be  so  explained. 

The  fact  that  religious  experience,  in  general,  involves 
more  than  an  antecedent  expectation,  that  it  depends  on  a 
belief  as  its  basis,  is  an  argument  against  the  self-sugges- 
tion theory.  It  becomes  a  very  strong  argument  in  view  of 
the  unexpectedness  of  grace,  in  view  of  the  fact  that,  while 
the  experience  is  in  accordance  with  underlying  belief,  it  is 
very  often  not  in  accordance  with  the  particular  expectations 
that  were  in  the  mind  of  the  individual  concerned.  It  is  a 
phenomenon  of  the  spiritual  life,  a  phenomenon  to  which 
many  writers  have  drawn  attention,  and  which  few  stu- 
dents of  that  life  would  hesitate  to  affirm,  that  prayer  for 
grace  is  commonly  not  answered  in  accordance  with  the  ex- 
pectation of  the  answer.  The  grace  supplied,  or  the  fruit 
of  the  grace  sought,  is  found  to  be  different  from  that  ex- 
pected, although  as  effective,  or  more  effective.  This  is  a 
fact  that  cuts  right  across  the  view  that  the  experience  in 
question  is  simply  the  outcome  of  expectation.  It  implies 
that,  while  not  only  expectation  but  some  definite  belief  as 


THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY  159 

to  its  basis  are  a  normal  condition  of  spiritual  experience, 
expectation  is  not  the  cause  of  that  experience. 

Rejoinder  may  be  made  to  this  argument  that  the  phe- 
nomenon is  still  explicable  on  the  hypothesis  of  self-sugges- 
tion, in  the  view  that  the  original  ideas  had  undergone 
transformation  while  in  the  subconscious.  iPsycho-therap- 
ists  aflarm  that  an  id^e  fixee  may  take  a  form  entirely  un- 
expected when  echoed  back  into  consciousness;  just  as, 
if  you  should  let  down  a  fish  box  containing  a  tadpole, 
you  might  be  surprised  on  hauling  it  up  to  find  a  frog. 
The  answer  to  that  objection  would  seem  to  be  that,  if  you 
let  down  the  fish  box  several  times,  each  time  with  a  tadpole 
in  it,  and  it  came  up  containing  now  one  sort  of  fish  and  now 
another,  you  would  be  fairly  justified  in  assuming  that  the 
fish  came  in  from  the  outside,  rather  than  that  the  tadpoles 
had  developed  in  such  discrepant  ways.  Now  this  is  exactly 
what  happens  in  religious  experience ;  the  circumstances 
from  which  relief  is  sought  being  the  same  and  the  prayer 
being  the  same,  the  answers  will  be,  not  only  unexpected, 
but  various.  When  a  prayer  for  guidance  results,  as  such 
prayers  often  do  result,  in  an  intuition  leading  toward  a 
course  of  conduct  that  runs  counter,  not  only  to  the  expecta- 
tion of  the  one  who  prays,  but  to  his  dearest  wish,  the  possi- 
bility of  such  an  intuition  arising  by  self-suggestion  is 
small.  It  is  difficult  to  escape  the  conclusion  that  the 
answer  came  from  without. 

The  evidence  is,  of  course,  cumulative.  The  experience 
of  a  single  individual  is  not  decisive.  The  weight  of  the 
testimony  of  experiments  in  all  ages,  races,  and  religions 
is  very  great  indeed. 

A  second  objection  to  the  self-suggestion  theory  is  still 
broader.  If  belief  is  not  merely  a  condition  of  spiritual  ex- 
perience, but  its  source,  then  we  ought  to  find  that  any 
belief  which  produced  expectations  of  spiritual  experience 
and  was  strongly  held,  should  produce  that  experience.  We 
should  find  the  significant  factor  to  be,  not  so  much  the 
character  of  the  belief  which  underlay  expectations,  but  the 
strength  with  which  the  belief  and  the  expectations  were 
held.    We  ought  not  to  find  any  strong  tendency  in  favor  of 


160  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

the  selection  and  survival  of  particular  underlying  con- 
ceptions. 

Now,  we  find  in  the  study  of  comparative  religions  that 
certain  conceptions,  for  example  the  conception  of  an  Incar- 
nation and  Atonement,  are  continually  cropping  up  in  dif- 
ferent directions  and  in  different  forms.  The  varied  exis- 
tence of  these  doctrines  is  not  to  be  explained  by  the  sur- 
vival of  a  common  primitive  religion  held  by  some  stock 
from  which  different  nations  sprang.  In  the  first  place, 
there  is  no  evidence  to  support  a  theory  of  the  common 
origin  of  all  religions.  But,  even  if  that  were  so,  these  ideas 
could  hardly  have  had  such  universal  survival,  unless  the 
ideas  had  had  some  special  effectiveness.  It  is  very  dif- 
ficult to  resist  the  conclusion  that  the  particular  beliefs,  just 
because  of  their  character,  have  worked  better  than  other  be- 
liefs. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  bound  to  say,  that  wTiile  spir- 
itual experience  may  not  be  possible  without  belief,  it  is 
not  merely  dependent  on  expectation,  but  depends  on  the 
conformity  of  underlying  beliefs  to  particular  types.  In 
the  measure  in  which  the  beliefs  approximate  these  types, 
in  that  measure  they  appear  to  possess  a  special  effective- 
ness, which  has  given  them  survival  value.  Our  attitude  and 
efforts  appear  to  be  so  oriented  by  certain  beliefs  as  to  make 
possible  experience  otherwise  unattainable, —  the  underlying 
belief  has  a  special  relation  to  Reality,  it  is  in  some  manner 
objectively  determined. 

These  considerations  fortify  the  conclusion  as  to  the  ex- 
istence of  God  which  may  be  derived  from  the  external  uni- 
verse, with  experimental  proof  of  a  peculiarly  intimate  na- 
ture. 

But  it  may  be  objected  that  the  religious  experience  is 
not  uniform  and  the  dogmatic  systems  derived  from  it 
vary  greatly.  The  case,  however,  is  no  better  for  science. 
The  detection  of  Hertzian  waves  is  a  matter  of  yesterday. 
Neptune  has  swung  around  the  sun  from  all  eternity  and  we 
found  her  only  a  century  ago.  Surely  we  do  not  differ  from 
the  Hottentot  more  in  religious  than  in  scientific  experience. 
There  is  not  more  difference  between  Mohammedanism  and 
Christianity  than  between  pre-Darwinian  and  post-Darwin- 


THE  GRAMMAR  OF  THEOLOGY  161 

Ian  biology.  Newton  taught  the  corpuscular  theory  of  light. 
We  hold  the  undulatory,  because  it  better  epitomizes  the 
facts  of  experience.  Einstein  appears  to  have  demonstrated 
that  it,  too,  is  at  fault  and  will  have  to  be  modified.  We 
regarded  electricity  first  as  a  fluid,  then  as  waves  in  the 
ether,  now  as  a  fluid  again,  but  a  very  different  sort  of 
fluid  than  our  first  conception. 

I  believe  it  to  be  demonstrable  that  all  religious  expe- 
rience is  at  base  very  similar.  We  are  prone  to  forget 
this,  because  we  have  been  taught  the  differences,  rather 
than  the  similarities,  between  our  faith  and  others.  Yet 
there  are,  of  course,  differences  both  in  religious  experience 
and  in  accuracy  of  deduction.  We  hold  to  Christianity, 
rather  than  Mohammedanism,  both  because  we  are  convinced 
that  it  embodies  more  valid  religious  experience,  including 
the  unique  experience  of  Jesus  and  the  experiences  of  his 
followers  throughout  the  ages,  and  also  because  we  feel  that 
its  doctrines  epitomize  and  explain  religious  experience  more 
accurately  than  those  of  Mohammedanism. 

Whether  in  the  field  of  what  we  call  material  phenonena, 
or  in  the  field  of  What  we  call  spiritual  phenomena,  there 
is  a  scientific  exi)erience  and  there  is  a  religious  experience, 
— an  outside  and  an  inside  view  of  the  same  phenomena. 
It  follows  that  the  two  systems,  natural  law  and  dogma, 
operate  on  different  planes,  so  to  speak.  They  take  account 
of  different  aspects  of  Reality.  Neither  may  legitimately 
contradict  the  conclusion  of  the  other  upon  its  own  plane. 

Natural  laws  are  formulas  worked  out  to  epitomize  the 
facts  of  scientific  experience.  Thus  the  laws  of  gravitation 
are  formulas  which  describe  the  motion  of  one  body  in  the 
presence  of  another.  But  they  do  much  more;  they  enable 
us  to  repeat  for  ourselves  the  experiments  performed  by 
another.  Expressed  more  technically,  the  natural  law  medi- 
ates scientific  experience. 

So  with  dogma.  A  religious  doctrine  to  be  valid  must 
fulfil  four  requirements.  First,  it  must  be  congruous  with 
the  legitimate  conclusions  of  science.  Truth  is  one,  and  our 
conclusions  and  explanations  in  one  field  of  experience  may. 


162  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

and  should,  be  tested  by  what  we  learn  in  other  fields. 
Secondly,  it  must  epitomize  and  explain  religious  expe- 
rience, not  only  the  limited  experience  of  any  of  us  as  in- 
dividuals, but  the  experience  of  the  human  race  as  a  whole. 
It  must,  also,  mediate  religious  experience.  It  must  enable 
us  to  repeat  in  our  own  lives  the  religious  experience  out 
of  which  the  doctrine  grew.  For  example,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation  enables  us  to  bring  home  to  ourselves 
the  personality  of  Jesus,  so  that  he  will  produce  in  us  that 
devotion  with  which  he  inspired  his  first  disciples.  Finally, 
the  doctrine  must  evoke  right  action;  it  must  work. 
If  any  doctrine,  when  put  to  the  test,  shall  be  found 
to  lower  the  ethical  tone  of  the  believer,  then  we  have  a 
right  to  assume  that  it  is  false,  or  at  least  incomplete.  The 
dogma  of  the  Trinity  is  a  conclusion  drawn  from  our  ex- 
perience that  God  is  at  once  transcendent,  immanent,  and 
humanistic.  It  also  mediates  religious  experience.  In  the 
light  of  that  dogma  we  revere  him  as  transcendent,  we 
commune  with  him  as  immanent,  and  we  love  him  as  hu- 
manistic. A  theology  lacking  either  of  these  elements  leads 
to  a  religious  life  which  lacks  them  also. 

This,  then,  is  the  grammar  of  theology,  the  underlying 
principles  on  which  it  is  based.  It  is  not  based  on  arbit- 
rary dogmas  imposed  by  authority.  It  is  built  up  to  epit- 
omize and  explain  and  mediate  religious  experience.  It  is 
the  science  of  the  religious  life. 


THE  NICENE  IDEA  OF  GOD.* 

Three  men  sat  in  the  library  of  their  club, — a  Priest, 
a  Lawyer,  and  a  Captain  of  Infantry,  home  on  leave.  As 
they  looked  into  the  fire  billowing  up  from  logs  on  the 
hearth  the  Captain  broke  the  silence. 

"Peculiar  thing,  Parson,  the  absolute  religious  faith  of  our 
boys  over  there,  coupled  with  comparative  disregard  for 
Churches  and  creeds.  The  world  is  fast  becoming  a  huge 
revival  meeting.  The  men  in  the  trenches  have  stood  for  one, 
two,  or  three  years  in  the  anteroom  of  God.  Many  times  a 
day  a  comrade's  name  is  called  and  he  has  marched  through 
the  door.  They  live  always  in  the  Presence.  No  wonder 
they  are  changed. 

"What  a  mental  explosion  must  have  taken  place  to 
have  broken  down  Anglo-Saxon  reserve  and  produced  such 
diaries  and  letters  as  we  are  getting  from  the  men  in  the 
trenches. 

"Meanwhile,  the  families  of  those  wiio  have  gone  beyond 
are  striving  to  break  down  the  barrier.  They  feel  sure  that 
they  can  do  this  by  the  aid  of  mediums,  and  perhaps  they 
are  right.  At  any  rate,  they,  too,  have  found  peace  for  their 
souls.  The  significance  of  this  for  organized  Christianity 
is  that  they,  like  the  men  in  the  trenches,  are  not  beholden 
for  their  religion  to  the  Churches.  Spiritualism,  they  fer- 
vently hold,  is  their  sufficient  religion. 

"They  are  storming  heaven;  but  they  are  doing  without 
the  oflficial  guides.  I  tell  you  this  new  religion  is  more 
dangerous  to  your  Churches  than  the  old-time  agnosticism. 
A  man  with  an  idea  is  a  dangerous  character. 

"I  feel  just  as  the  rest  do  about  your  theology ;  yet  in  a 
way  I  regret  that  you  cannot  adapt  the  old  teachings  to  this 
new  spirit.  For  I  tell  you  that,  unless  someone  brings  bottles, 


'Reprinted  by  permission  from  The  Billical  Worlds  November,  191'8. 


164  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

this  new  wine  Is  going  to  be  drunk  to  intoxication,  or  else 
allowed  to  run  away  and  be  lost." 

"Where  would  you  begin  your  reconstruction?"  inquired 
the  Priest. 

"Right  at  the  beginning,"  said  the  Soldier.  "Do  away 
with  such  a  contradiction  in  terms  as  a  Trinity.  The  God 
for  me  is  an  Invisible  King,  a  Captain  of  the  Host,  not  an 
Abstraction.  I  think  Wells  has  shown  the  absurdity  of  any 
other  concept." 

"Mr.  Wells  would  be  more  convincing,"  replied  the  Priest, 
"if  he  appeared  to  understand  what  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  really  means.  We  have  never  understood  it  to  mean 
what  he  says  it  means.  But  passing  that,  it  seems  to  me 
that  Mr.  Wells  is  much  nearer  to  the  Christian  theology  than 
he  knows,  for  the  God  of  whom  he  conceives  is  in  fact  none 
other  than  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity.  The  trouble 
with  Mr.  Wells  is  that  he  became  so  impressed  with  his 
discovery  that  he  has  entirely  overlooked  the  other  two  Per- 
sons. His  conception  of  the  nature  of  God  is,  therefore,  one 
sided.  The  three  elements  are  essential  to  a  well-balanced 
idea  of  the  Deity."i 

"Aren't  you  rather  severe  on  the  gentleman  for  what  you 
call  his  misconception  of  the  Nicene  dogma  of  the  Trinity?" 
replied  the  Soldier.  "If  he  has  misconceived  it,  aren't  you 
theologians  to  blame?  Who  knows  what  it  means,  anyhow? 
I  will  confess  that  I  have  had  much  the  same  idea  about  it 
as  Wells." 

"Then,"  said  the  Priest,  "neither  you  nor  Wells  should 
condemn  it  until  you  have  informed  yourselves  as  to  what 
it  really  is." 

"Where  would  you  have  me  go,"  replied  the  Soldier, 
"to  find  that  out?  1  have  delved  into  ancient  tomes  and  sat 
through  modern  sermons,  and  the  purport  of  them  all  is 
something  like  this:  'God  is  three  persons  and  one  being; 
three  natures  and  one  God.  What  this  means  we  do  not 
know,  and  it  is  impious  to  inquire.  The  Trinity  is  a  mys- 
tery ;  but  so  is  the  constitution  of  matter,  so  is  the  nature  of 


*See  The  Meaning  of  Mr.  Wells'  New  Religion,  by  Ber- 
nard Iddings  Bell,  Atlantic  Monthly,  November,  1917. 


THE  NICENE  IDEA  OF  GOD  165 

life,  so  is  the  law  of  gravitation.  Since  we  cannot  know, 
we  must  believe.' " 

"Such  a  statement,*'  continued  the  Soldier,  "contains 
several  fallacies.  In  the  first  place,  the  assertion  that  one 
equals  three  and  three  equals  one  is  not  a  'mystery'.  It  is 
plain  untruth.  It  is  the  negation  of  a  fundamental  axiom 
of  logic,  that  the  whole  is  greater  than  a  part.  Accepted, 
all  logic  is  turned  topsy-turvy  and  all  intellection  becomes 
at  once  impossible.  Secondly,  the  statement  that  'since  we 
cannot  know,  we  must  believe,'  while  right  enough  within 
limits,  is  not  applicable  to  this  proposition.  We  cannot,  must 
not,  believe  the  incredible ;  and  I  submit  that  God  does  not 
ask  it  of  us.  We  cannot  reason  about  the  unreasonable.  In 
short,  faith  is  not  the  antithesis  of  knowledge,  but  its  com- 
plement. Faith  is  not  opposed  to  reason.  A  mystery  is  be- 
yond knowledge,  but  it  is  not  beyond  reason ;  much  less  is  it 
contrary  to  reason.  Faith  is  not,  as  the  little  girl  in  the 
story  said,  believing  something  that  you  know  is  not  so. 

"To  put  it  differently,  our  present  sciences  are  disjointed 
segments  of  a  curve,  not  yet  complete  enough  to  enable  us 
to  plot  the  curve  in  entirety,  but  sufficient  to  enable  us  to 
surmise  its  bearing  in  a  general  way.  We  can  say  which 
of  several  curves  may  contain  these  segments,  or  rather, 
wMch  curves  cannot  contain  them.  The  function  of  the 
sciences  is  to  extend  these  segments.  The  function  of 
philosophy  and  theology  is  to  construct  the  hypothetical 
curves  which  will  contain  these  segments ;  not  to  evolve 
new  curves  out  of  thin  air.  As  the  sciences  push  out  into 
the  hitherto  unknown,  the  hypothetical  curves  are  tending, 
it  is  fair  to  assume,  toward  an  ever  closer  approximation 
to  reality.  Knowledge  and  reason  are  not,  in  the  main, 
faulty,  but  merely  incomplete. 

"It  follows  that  the  dogma  of  the  Trinity,  while  not 
wholly  comprehensible,  ought  not  to  be  incredible  or  un- 
reasonable." 

"1  will  grant  you  all  this,"  said  the  Priest,  "but,  really, 
the  dogma  of  the  Trinity  is  neither  incredible  nor  unreason- 
able. You  must  not  be  led  to  condemn  it  by  isolated  utter- 
ances of  preachers." 


166  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

"As  to  that,  I  appeal  unto  Caesar,"  returned  the  Soldier. 
"We  will  pass  over  the  utterances  of  preachers,  who,  I 
grant  you,  are  not  always  theologians.  I  will  rest  my  case 
on  the  Quicunque  Vult,  the  so-called  Athanasian  Creed. 
Tf  that  does  not,  in  effect,  affirm  that  one  equals  three  and 
three  equals  one,  then  I  lose.  Or  I  will  take  the  famous 
analogy  of  the  trefoil,  ascribed  to  Saint  Patrick, — I  submit 
that  this  analogy  portrays  God  as  a  sort  of  spiritual  Siam- 
ese triplet." 

"No,  no,  no,"  interjected  the  Priest,  "the  Church  does  not 
undertake  to  define  the  manner  of  union ;  it  simply  affirms 
the  tri-unity  and  authorizes  the  believer  to  theorize  about 
it  as  he  likes." 

"If  that  be  true,  it  is  a  severe  indictment,"  rejoined  the 
Soldier.  "It  means  that  the  Church  propounds  a  riddle  and 
refuses  to  give  the  faithful  the  key.  It  requires  them  to 
keep  their  minds  a  vacuum  on  this  dogma  which  lies  at  the 
very  basis  of  Christian  theology.  Nature  abhors  a  vacuum. 
The  mind  soon  fills  with  all  sorts  of  grotesque  concepts. 
The  Church  is  in  duty  bound,  if  it  has  a  rational  idea  of  the 
Trinity,  to  make  it  known." 

"You  do  the  rank  and  file  of  Christians  an  injustice,"  said 
the  Priest,  "Their  idea  of  the  Trinity  is  neither  grotesque 
nor  vacuous." 

"Is  it  not,  then?"  replied  the  Soldier.  "  I  affirm  that  my 
idea  of  the  dogma  is  grotesque ;  and  you  insist  that  Wells's 
is.  Both  of  us,  I  submit,  are  men  of  fair  intelligence.  But 
do  not  stop  with  us.  Go  out  and  inquire  at  random  of  a 
dozen  of  your  flock.  Ask  them  what  they  make  of  the 
Quicunque  Vult.  Then  ask  them  what,  if  any,  inspiration 
they  gain  from  it. 

"This  ought  not  so  to  be.  Christianity  boasts  that,  unlike 
the  ancient  philosophies  and  heathen  cults,  its  tenets  furnish 
inspiration  and  practical  aid  in  good  living.  If  the  best 
that  can  be  said  for  a  dogma  is  that  it  is  harmless,  then  why 
cumbereth  it  the  ground?    Get  rid  of  it." 

During  all  this  the  Lawyer  had  been  sitting  on  the  edge 
of  his  chair,  trying  in  vain  to  get  the  floor.  At  last  he  broke 
in: 


THE  NWENE  IDEA  OF  GOD  167 

"You  are  right  that  the  dogma  should  he  got  rid  of,  if 
It  is  grotesque  or  meaningless.  But  I  judge  that  the  Parson 
has  found  it  to  be  neither.  Yet  I  grant  you  that  he  has 
done  nothing  to  define  the  relations  between  the  persons  of 
the  Trinity ;  and  unless  that  is  done,  no  matter  how  greatly 
the  dogma  may  appeal  to  the  sympathies,  it  cannot  gain 
acceptance.  Perhaps  he  feels  that  it  would  not  become  his 
cloth  to  engage  in  such  a  controversy;  or  perhaps  he  has 
himself  been  content  not  to  think  the  problem  through  to 
the  end.  I  believe,  however,  that  the  Church  must  think  it 
through  and  must  define  the  interrelation  of  the  persons 
in  terms  of  modern  thought.  I  was  at  first  inclined  to  be- 
lieve, with  you.  Captain,  that  this  could  not  be  done.  But 
further  study  has  convinced  me,  not  only  that  the  dogma  may 
be  reasonably  defined,  but  that,  as  originally  promulgated, 
H  was  essentially  reasonable,  and  that  the  unreasonable 
elements  were  imported  into  it  later.  If  you  like,  I  will 
explain  myself." 

The  others  settled  themselves  in  their  chairs  and  allowed 
the  Lawyer  free  rein. 

"In  construing  a  statute,  or  a  decree  of  a  court,"  he  be- 
gan, "the  jurist  observes  two  fundamental  canons.  First,  he 
must  interpret  the  language  in  the  light  of  the  particular 
facts  in  the  controversy  or  situation  which  it  Is  framed  to 
meet.  Secondly,  he  must  give  to  the  words  employed  their 
accepted  and  usual  meaning  at  the  time  and  place  of  the 
pronouncement.     Let  us  apply  these  canons  here. 

"The  germs  of  the  concepts  of  the  First  and  Third  Per- 
sons are  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  normal  Hebrew 
idea  of  God  corresponded  to  the  First  Person,  but  was  an- 
thropomorphic. The  Hebrews,  consequently,  thought  that 
when  He  sought  to  enter  the  human  soul  He  must  needs  at- 
tenuate Himself,  that  is,  become  a  spirit  (ruach=Trv€VfjLa= 
spi7'itus='hveeze') .  Thus  the  prophets,  in  speaking  of  a 
theophany,  say,  'The  Lord  appeared  unto  me ;'  but  in  speak- 
ing of  an  inspiration  they  say.  'The  spirit  of  the  Lord  (i.  e., 
the  Lord  in  spiritual  form)  came  upon  me.'  There  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  any  tendency  to  hypostatize  this  con- 
cept of  the  spirit  of  the  Lord. 


168  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

'The  Logos  concept  originated  among  the  Alexandrine 
Jews.  It  was  introduced  to  relieve  the  Oeator  of  responsi- 
bility for  a  sinful  world.  The  creative  act  was  conceived 
of  as  performed  by,  or  through,  the  Logos,  who  was  an 
emanation  from  God  and  *of  like  substance'.  The  three 
concepts  thus  existed  in  embryo  at  the  time  of  Christ. 

"When  the  early  Christians  were  making  a  formula  to 
express  the  relationship  between  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus 
and  the  Godhead,  they  made  use  of  this  Logos  concept.  They 
also  brought  over  the  concept  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"A  dispute  now  arose  among  them  as  to  the  interrelation 
of  the  concepts  of  Father,  Word,  and  Spirit,  in  particular 
of  the  two  former.  The  undeniable  fact  that  Jesus  had 
a  human  nature  distinct  from  Deity  tended  subconsciously 
to  make  for  a  concept  of  the  Word  as  a  Being  separate  from 
the  Father,  and  inclined  the  Arians  to  the  pre-Christian 
dogma  of  distinctness,  if  not  disparity,  between  the  two. 

"On  the  other  hand,  the  Athanasians  argued,  and  rightly, 
that  such  a  doctrine  destroyed  the  idea  of  the  Unity  of  God 
and  tended  toward  the  vagaries  of  Gnosticism  and  the 
grossness  of  polytheism. 

"Modern  Unitarians,  and  with  them,  Mr.  Wells,  assume 
that  the  Arians  affirmed  the  unity  of  God  by  denying  the 
divinity  of  Jesus.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  Arian  contro- 
versy had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  nature  of  Jesus. 
Both  parties  affirmed  that  Jesus  was  divine.  The  Arians 
claimed  that  Deity  consisted  of  three  'like'  entities;  that 
is,  that  the  three  were  distinct,  but  that  all  partook  of  the 
nature  of  Deity.  The  Athanasians  contended  that  Deity  is 
one.  It  is  to  the  eternal  credit  of  Athanasius  that  the 
Christian  religion  is  not  tritheistic. 

"Viewed,  then,  in  the  light  of  history,  the  chief  concern 
of  the  Council  of  Nicaea  wias  evidently  the  affirmation  of 
the  unity  of  the  Deity;  and  its  language,  if  ambiguous, 
should  be  so  construed. 

"Turn  now  to  the  words  themselves.  That  portion  of 
the  creed  formulated  by  the  Council  ( the  Nicene  Creed  as  we 
now  have  it  is  the  result  of  modifications  made  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople  some  half  a  century  later)  which  has 
to  do  with  the  relation  between  the  First  and  Second    Per- 


THE  NICENE  IDEA  OF  GOD  169 

sons,  reads  as  follows:  'And  (we  believe)  in  one  Lord,  Jesus 
Christ,  the  son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father,  only  begot- 
ten, that  is  to  say  of  the  being  (oiffias)  of  the  Father,  God 
of  God,  Light  of  Light,  Very  God  of  Very  God,  begotten, 
not  made,  One-in-deing  {dfioovalop)  with  the  Father,  Creator 

of  all  things  both  in  heaven  and  on  earth But 

those  who  say,  "There  was  when  He  was  not"  and  "Before 
He  was  begotten  He  was  not"  and  that  "He  came  into  exis- 
tence from  nonexistence,"  or  who  profess  that  the  Son  of 
God  is  of  different  substance  or  being,  iripas  iiroffrdffeus 
^  oixTias  {ex  alia  subsistentia  aut  substantia),  or  that  He  is 
created,  or  changeable,  or  variable,  are  anathematized  by 
the  Catholic  Church.'  (Note  that  those  who  say  that  the 
Son  is  irepas  viroaraaem  from  the  Father  are  anathematized.) 

"The  two  key  words  are  inrSffTacris  and  oi<rla.  LiddelL  and 
Scott's  Greek  Lexicon  defines  virbcrraais  as  follows :  'Founda- 
tion ;  substance ;  in  philosophy  and  theology  it  denotes  ac- 
tual existence,  as  opposed  to  semblance,  the  real  nature  of 
a  thing  as  opposed  to  its  outward  form  (the  Ding  an  8ic7i), 
sometimes  used  as  practically  synonymous  with  o^o-ta;  in 
later  theology  it  was  limited  in  sense  to  the  special  char- 
acteristic nature  of  a  person  or  thing,  directly  opposite  to 
omla  (generic  nature),  and  it  was  so  used  to  translate  the 
Latin  persona.'' 

"The  word  ovaia  is  defined  by  the  same  authority  as: 
'Being:  existence,  in  the  philosophy  of  Plato  and  Aristotle 
the  word  signifies  essence,  true  nature,  also  bei/n,g  as  op- 
posed to  not  being;  in  later  Greek  scientific  works,  a  primary 
substance,  an  element.' 

"The  two  words  were,  then,  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene 
Council,  practically  synonymous ;  and  they  appear  to  have 
been  so  used  in  the  last  clause  of  the  Creed,  which  I  have 
quoted.  Indeed  vTrSaraais  which  was  later  employed  to 
translate  the  Latin  persona,  is  etymologically  the  same  word 
as  substantia,  which  is  the  Latin  equivalent  for  ovala.  The 
word  viroffraais  did  not  mean  persona  at  the  time  of  the 
Council  of  Nicaea,  much  less  did  it  correspond  to  the  Eng- 
lish word  person. 

"Viewed,  then,  in  the  light  both  of  history  and  linguistics, 
the  Nicene  Creed  is  concerned  solely  with  aflarming  the  unity 
of  the  Godhead.    It  presupposes,  to  be  sure,  that  the  God- 


170  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

head  is  complex ;  but  it  does  not  affirm  the  complexity,  much 
less  undertake  to  define  it.  In  fact,  the  Athanasians  were 
at  once  accused  by  the  Arians  of  Sabellianism,  that  is  of 
denying  that  the  Godhead  is  complex. 

"It  was  probably  to  defend  themselves  against  this  ac- 
cusation that  the  later  Athanasians  formulated  their  idea 
of  the  nature  of  the  complexity  of  the  Godhead.  This  step 
was  first  taken  by  the  Latin,  not  the  Greek,  fathers  not  long 
after  the  Council  of  Nicaea.  They  gave  utterance  to  the 
formula  that  God  is  of  three  personae. 

"Now,  this  word  persona  meant  originally  an  actor's 
mask  (from  per-sonans).  In  the  fourth  century,  and  be- 
fore, the  word  was  employed  in  legal  terminology  to  de- 
note 'an  aggregate  of  legal  rights  and  duties.'  Thus,  a  cor- 
poration had  a  persona;  but  a  slave  had  none.  A  citizen 
might  have  several  personae,  for  example,  as  tutor  (guar- 
dian), fiduciarius  (trustee),  and  so  on.  The  use  of  the 
Avord  in  the  fourth  century  was  restricted  to  this  legal 
sense,  and  it  very  rarely  had  any  other  connotation.  It  was 
this  legal  term  which  the  Fathers  used  in  defining  the  com- 
plexity of  the  nature  of  Deity.  Very  evidently  the  great 
truth  w^hich  they  were  struggling  to  express  was  that  the 
nature  of  Deity,  while  essentially  one,  is  complex,  three- 
sided,  in  function.  God  in  essence  is  one;  there  is  but  one 
center  of  consciousness  and  of  will  in  the  Deity.  But  in  his 
revelation  of  himself  he  has  three  aspects,  manifestations, 
capacities,  or  functionings — as  Father,  as  Son,  as  Holy 
Spirit.  The  three  aspects  are  simultaneous  and  co-eternal; 
they  inhere  in  the  very  nature  of  God.  In  the  concept  of  God 
as  Father  we  have  the  aspect  of  transcendence;  in  the  con- 
cept of  God  as  Holy  Spirit,  the  aspect  of  immanence.  In  the 
concept  of  God  as  Son  we  have  God  on  the  humanistic,  or 
spiritually  anthropomorphic,  side;  we  have,  that  is  to  say, 
the  aspect  of  God  which  is  capable  of  adumbration  in  terms 
of  the  human  personality." 

At  this  point  the  Soldier  broke  in :  "That  is  a  very 
pretty  theory ;  but  I  can  quote  you  commentators  who  are 
dead  against  it,  and  who  state  with  the  assurance  of 
authority  that  the  distinction  of  Persons  is  far  more  funda- 
mental than  this." 


THE  NTCFJME  IDEA   OF  COD  171 

"1  grant  you  that,"  retorted  the  Lawyer.  "On  the  other 
hand,  many  of  the  more  thoughtful  of  the  orthodox  author- 
ities are  in  substantial  accord  with  this  theory.  But  I  take 
it  that  the  Catholic  Church  derives  its  dogmas  from  coun- 
cils, not  from  commentators." 

"The  corruption  in  the  interpretation  of  the  dogma  crept 
in  like  this,"  continued  the  Lawj^er.  "The  Greeks  c{is+ 
about  for  a  word  to  translate  persona.  Unfortunately,  they 
chose  vTroaraais,  which  up  to  that  time  had  had  the  mean- 
ing of  suhstance,  rather  than  irp6<rcoTrov ,  which  was  almost  the 
exact  equivalent  of  pet'sona.  How  they  came  to  employ  this 
word  I  will  not  undertake  to  say.  We  know  that  Arianism 
had  its  principal  strength  in  the  East,  and  that  Easterns, 
who  after  the  Council  of  Nicaea  conformed  outwardly,  re- 
mained at  heart  Arians  or  semi-Arians.  Perhaps  they  con 
trived  in  this  way  to  accomplish  their  ends  by  indirection.  A I 
any  rate  the  word,  which  had  been  the  synonym  of  ovaia, 
now  became  its  antonym.  But,  like  all  adopted  children, 
tlie  word  did  not  altogether  lose  its  early  traits.  It  connoted 
something  far  more  fundamental  than  persona.  The  Greek 
word,  in  turn,  reacted  upon  and  modified  the  Latin  concept. 

"When  the  mediaeval  English  theologians  came  to  write 
the  dogma  in  English,  they  did  it  yet  worse  disservice. 
They  made  no  attempt  to  find  equivalent  words,  but  merely 
transliterated  the  words.  Substantia  became  sut)-stance; 
persona  became  person.  God,  so  the  translation  runs. 
is  one  substance  and  three  persons.  Suhstance  is  bad 
enough ;  it  has  a  material  connotation,  and  has  traveled  far 
from  the  Greek  ovcria  (being).  But  person  is  a  mere  parody 
on  the  original.  It  denotes  in  English  a  distinct,  individual, 
sentient  being,  or  center  of  consciousness,  a  meaning  which 
the  Latin  word  never  had  so  long  as  Latin  was  a  spoken 
language.  English-speaking  Christendom  should  rid  itself 
of  this  fantastic  verbal  incubus." 

"With  all  this,"  said  the  Soldier :  "I  can  quite  agree. 
But  have  you  not,  in  effect,  evacuated  your  trenches  to  the 
Unitarians,  leaving  only  dummies  and  Quaker  guns  to  con- 
ceal your  retreat?" 

"Not  so  fast,"  rejoined  the  Lawyer.  "It  is  true  that  I 
have,    like   the    Unitarians,    emphasized   the   Unity   of   the 


172  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

Deity,  but  by  a  totally  different  process.  They  have  come 
at  Unity  by  hacking  away  two  elements  in  the  divine  nature, 
the  transcendent  and  the  anthropomorphic,  leaving  the  im- 
manent only.  I  have  arrived  at  Unity, — rather,  I  believe,  I 
have  brought  out  what  the  Catholic  faith  has  always  im- 
plied,— by  retaining  all  three  » elements,  but  compacting 
them,  making  the  distinction  of  Persons  one  of  functioning 
rather  than  Of  being." 

"But  why  do  you  limit  the  number  of  Persons  to  three?" 
rejoined  the  Priest.  "God  acts  in  an  infinite  variety  of 
ways ;  and  if  the  distinction  be  one  of  function,  you  should 
have  an  infinite  number  of  Persons." 

"That  does  not  follow  at  all,"  answered  the  Lawyer. 
"The  distinction  of  Persons  is  not  a  distinction  of  functions, 
but  of  modes  of  functioning.  The  distinction  is  fundamen- 
tal, since  the  three  modes  are,  to  a  large  extent,  incongru- 
ous. A  God  who  is  immanent  only  might  function  in  a 
variety  of  ways  and  still  be  but  simple  in  nature.  But  a 
God  who  is  at  once  immanent,  transcendent,  and  humanis- 
tic, simultaneously  and  eternally,  cannot  be  other  than 
complex." 

"Your  explanation  may  seem  rational,"  answered  the 
Priest,  "but  it  is  certainly  not  orthodox.  You  will  remem- 
ber that  the  theories  of  Sabellius  and  the  other  so-called 
Miodalists,  which  correspond  exactly  to  yours,  were  held  to 
be  unorthodox." 

"If  the  view  which  I  urge  correctly  epitomizes  and  ex- 
plains man's  Inherent  thought  about  God,  then  it  ought  to 
be  accepted,  regardless  of  what  some  of  the  theologians  of 
the  past  may  have  thought  about  similar  views.  But,  since 
I  undertook  to  prove  that  my  view  does  really  represent 
the  Nicene  opinion,  you  have  a  right  to  an  answer  to  your 
question.  I  differ  from  the  Medalists,  because  they  taught 
that  the  three  modes  of  functioning  were  assumed  and  laid 
aside  by  the  Deity  at  successive  points  in  time;  that  he 
functioned  first  as  Father,  then  during  the  Incarnation  as 
Son,  and  finally  after  the  Ascension  as  Holy  Spirit.  Or, 
as  some  of  them  held,  that  the  difference  lies  more  in  our 
apprehension  of  God  than  In  what  He  is  or  does.    Now  I, 


THE  NICENE  IDEA  OF  GOD  173 

on  the  contrary,  have  been  urging  the  view  that  these  modes 
of  functioning  are  co-eternal  and  inhere  in  His  very  nature. 
It  is  of  the  very  nature  of  God  to  be  immanent,  to  be  trans- 
cendent, and  to  be  humanistic.  It  is  as  unthinkable  that  he 
should  ever  for  a  moment  cease  to  exist  upon  these  three 
planes  as  that  he  should  ever  cease  entirely.  Htence  the 
complexity  is  not  simply  one  of  outward  manifestation,  but 
represents  a  real  complexity  of  being.  As  to  what  that 
complexity  is  I  know  as  little  as  I  know  of  the  real  nature 
of  myself,  or  of  any  other  living  thing. 

"Now,  this  solution  of  the  problem  accords  with  modern 
modes  of  thought  in  all  spheres.  We  see  our  universe  no 
longer  as  static,  but  as  kinetic.  The  evolutionary  viewpoint, 
which  found  place  first  in  biology,  has  taken  possession  of  the 
fields  of  psychology,  history,  sociology,  economics,  philoso- 
phy; in  short,  of  every  field  of  thought.  We  have  come  to 
see  that  nothing  is  static,  everything  is  in  flux.  When,  for 
purposes  of  analysis,  we  study  a  thing  without  reference  to 
its  past  or  future,  or  its  interrelation  with  the  whole  uni- 
verse, we  are  mere  anatomists,  poring  over  a  cadaver.  We 
have  discovered  that  it  is  neither  so  easy  nor  so  profitable 
as  we  once  thought  it  to  know  what  a  thing  *is'.  We  realize 
that  all  we  need  to  know  of  a  thing,  perhaps  all  we  can 
know,  is  how  it  acts.  We  are  consequently  taking  less  and 
less  interest  in  ontology  and  more  and  more  interest  in 
function. 

"So,  in  theology,  it  is  the  way  in  which  God  deals  with 
his  universe  which  is,  after  all,  of  importance.  In  that  re- 
spect man  has  always  instinctively  thought  of  God  in  three 
aspects,  and  always  will.  God  acts  transcendently ;  he  Is 
above  and  beyond  nature;  he  creates  and  rules  it.  God 
acts  also  immanently:  he  is  in  nature,  and  most  of  all  in 
the  heart  of  man,  if  man  will  but  seek  him  there.  God 
acts,  also,  anthropomorphically  in  a  spiritual  sense.  That  is 
to  say,  the  divine  mind  is  comparable  to  the  human  mind. 
We  feel  sure  that  the  attributes  of  the  human  mind,  such 
as  love,  mercy,  justice,  are  to  be  found  in  perfection  in  the 
divine  mind.  In  this  aspect  God  is  capable  of  expression 
in   terms  of  perfect  humanity. 


174  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

"Historically  speaking  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was 
evolved  to  explain  the  life  of  Jesus.  Considering  Jesus, — 
what  he  did,  what  he  said,  how  he  lived,  his  followers  asked 
themselves.  'How  shall  we  account  for  this  life?  Though 
born  of  woman,  yet  never  man  spoke  as  he  spoke ;  never 
man  lived  so  close  to  God,  or  brought  others  so  close  to  God ; 
never  man  so  convicted  us  of  sin;  never  man  so  conquered 
death.  Can  we  say  that  such  a  life  was  merely  human?' 
This  question  the  early  Church  answered  unanimously  in 
the  negative.  The  hypothesis  of  simple  humanity  did  not 
fit  the  facts.  The  problem  then  confronting  Christendom 
was  what  to  think  of  the  God-like  element  in  the  Life? 
Was  it  an  angel  who  lived  in  Jesus,  or  a  Being  like  God,  or 
was  it  God  himself?  All  three  theories  contended  for  recog- 
nition. Arius  held  the  second  view.  Athanasius  W'ith  in- 
spired insight  realized  that  such  a  doctrine,  if  adopted, 
would  reduce  Christianity  to  tri-theism.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  was  obvious  that  the  God-like  characteristics  displayed 
in  the  life  of  Jesus  were  not  those  of  a  transcendent  Cre- 
ator, nor  yet  of  an  immanent  superpersonal  Spirit.  Here 
was  displayed  an  aspect  of  Deity  of  which  the  world  had 
till  then  not  been  aware,  an  aspect,  however,  which  enorm- 
ously enriched  man's  experience  of  God.  So  Athanasius  con- 
vinced the  Church  of  the  truth  of  the  idea  of  God  which 
found  expression  in  the  Nicene  Creed. 

"Yet,  while  historically  it  was  the  fact  of  the  Incarna- 
tion that  necessitated  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  that  doc- 
trine finds  its  deeper  sanction  in  its  profound  agreement 
with  all  human  experience  of  God.  It  is  hard  for  us  to 
think  about  God  without  conceiving  him  in  the  three  ways. 
Possibly  the  human  mind,  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
Spirit,  might  have  thought  its  way  through  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  even  had  not  tlie  Incarnation  forced  the 
issue.  The  Logos  theory  of  Philo  and  the  Memra  (Word) 
doctrine  of  the  [Palestinian  rabbis,  two  parallel  but  inde- 
pendent lines  of  thought  which  were  current  about  the 
time  of  Christ,  indicated  a  general  tendency  in  the  direction 
of  an  affirmation  of  the  triune  nature  of  Deity. 

"Contradictory  though  they  appear  to  be,  these  three 
ideas   of   God   have   entered    willy-nilly   into  the   theologic 


TJJE  NIOENE  IDEA  OP  OOD  175 

thinking  of  every  race  and  creed  since  the  beginning.  Some- 
times, to  be  sure,  one  or  other  of  these  ideas  has  been  magni- 
fied so  as  to  eclipse  the  others ;  but  the  eclipse  is  never  quite 
total,  and,  such  as  it  is,  the  result  is  achieved  by  sopbisti- 
cated  reasoning,  not  by  instinctive  feeling. 

"Conceive  a  God  of  but  one  Person,  one  mode  of  func- 
tioning, and  you  will  see  how  distorted  the  picture  is. 

"Picture  God  as  transcendent  only.  He  sits  in  majesty 
above  the  heaven  of  heavens.  He  formed  the  material  uni- 
verse and  set  it  spinning,  as  a  clock-maker  makes  a  clock 
and  winds  it  up.  He  is  not  immanent;  if  he  interferes  at 
all,  it  is  to  frustrate  and  annul  the  processes  of  nature. 
He  is  not  humanistic ;  he  cannot  be  touched  with  the  feel- 
ing of  our  infirmities;  the  homely  virtues  of  our  human  na- 
ture are  not  for  him.  He  is  the  German  Thor,  the  God  of 
the  destroyers  of  Belgium. 

"Picture  God  as  immanent  only.  Not  being  transcendent, 
he  (or  shall  I  say  It?)  is  caught  in  the  toils  of  matter 
as  a  fish  in  a  net.  Not  being  humanistic,  he  is  impersonal. 
He  doeth  good ;  he  also  doeth  evil,  since  he  is  All.  Evil, 
indeed,  is  but  an  undeveloped  good.  His  ethic  is  quietism ; 
his  reward.  Nirvana.    He  is  the  God  of  Buddha. 

"Picture  God  as  humanistic  only.  Such  is  the  God  of 
Mr.  Wells.  He  is  strong,  but  not  almighty ;  good,  but  not 
perfect ;  wdse,  but  not  omniscient.  We  may  love,  respect, 
and  pity  him ;  we  cannot  fear  him.  He  is  not  the  Lord  of 
men  and  angels ;  he  holds  not  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell. 
Above  him  stands  the  Veiled  One.  He  is  Zeus  prostrate 
before  Anank6. 

"An  adequate  idea  of  God  demands  the  three  concepts. 
In  all  well-balanced  theologies  they  exist,  at  least  implicitly. 
It  is  the  peculiar  glory  of  Christianity  that  it  formulated 
what  was  before  implicit,  and  has  succeeded  fairly  well  in 
maintaining  a  balance  between  the  three. 

"Yet  Christianity  is  failing  today  to  bring  this  truth 
home  to  the  masses  by  shrouding  it  in  the  verbiage  of  a 
past  age  and  permitting,  if  not  fostering,  an  obscurantist 
interpretation  repellant  to  the  modern  mind. 

"Instead  of  the  trefoil  let  us  picture  our  idea  of  God  by 
that  other  symbol,  the  triangle.     So  understood,  the  idea 


176  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

ceases  to  be  grotesque  or  meaningless  and  becomes  the 
formulation  of  age-old  truth,  implicit  in  the  very  foundation 
of  theologic  thinking,  a  mystery  still,  as  it  always  will  be, 
but  a  reasonable,  nay  a  necessary,  mystery." 


NATURE  AND  RELIGION 

By   Heney   Faiefield   Osboen. 

(Note:  The  following  article  is  reprinted  by  permis- 
sion from  The  Churchman  of  June  24,  1922.  The  author 
is  the  well-known  paleontologist  and  author  of  The  Origin 
and  Evolution  of  Life  and  of  Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age  in 
Europe,  This  article  illustrates  the  present  attitude  of 
men  of  science  toward  religion,  and  registers  the  change 
wliich  has  taken  place  in  their  attitude  since  the  closing 
years  of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  italics  and  capitals 
are  Dr.  Osborn's.) 

May  I  call  the  attention  of  the  readers  of  The  Church- 
man to  a  change  of  attitude  on  the  part  of  leaders  of 
scientific  thought  xn  Great  Britain  and  in  the  United 
States  which  I  believe  marks  the  opening  of  a  new  era 
in  both  science  and  theology.  I  give  first  a  number 
of  citations  from  Nature  (Sept.  2,  1920),  the  official  me- 
dium of  British  scientific  opinion,  entitled  "The  Unity 
of  Science  and  Religion": 

"The  Cardiff  meeting  of  the  British  Association  will 
be  marked  .  .  .  because  of  two  noteworthy  events. 
One  was  the  suggestion  .  .  .  that  the  time  had  come 
for  a  new  Challenger  expedition  for  the  exploration  of  the 
oceans,  and  another  was  the  enlightened  sermon,  which 
we  print  in  full  elsewhere,  delivered  by  Canon  E.  W. 
Barnes,  a  distinguished  mathematician,  who  is  both  a  Fellow 
of  the  Royal  Society  and  a  Canon  of  Westminster.  We 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  not  for  a  long  time  has  such 
a  conciliatory  attitude  been  presented  to  men  of  science 
by  a  leader  in  the  Church  as  is  represented  by  Canon 
Barnes'  address.  The  position  taken  up  in  it  is  one  upon 
which  the  two  standards  of  science  and  religion  can  be 
placed  side  by  side  to  display  to  the  world  their  unity 
of  purpose.       For   Science  and  Religion  are  twin  sisters, 


17S  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

each  studying  her  own  sacred  book  of  God  and  building 
a  structure  which  remains  sure  only  when  established  upon 
the  foundation  of  truth." 

The  writer  goes  on  to  say  that  the  day  of  bitter  con- 
troversy between  dogmatic  theology  and  often  no  less 
dogmatic  science  is  past  and  gone,  and  that  no  one  would 
wish  to  recall  it.       He  continues : 

"The  scientific  view  of  religion,  now  accepted  by  men 
of  science  and  Churchmen  alike,  is  that  religion  is  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  individual,  and  subject  to  development. 
Progress  is  possible  here  as  elsewhere,  and  in  fact  the 
history  of  the  forms  of  religion  shows  a  gradual  purifi- 
cation and  emancipation  advancing  with  the  gradual  re- 
finement of  experience.  The  goal,  as  a  reviewer  has 
said  in  these  columns,  is  a  union  of  God  and  humanity, 
and  the  end  must  be  the  concrete  realization  of  unity  in 
life  and  purpose  for  which,  as  for  the  unity  of  the  world 
as  object  of  the  sciences,  the  reality  of  the  Divine  im- 
manence is  the  only  sure  ground  .  .  .  Whatever  the 
end  may  be,  we  are  urged  to  the  quest  by  that  something 
within  ourselves  which  has  produced  from  a  primitive 
ancestry  the  noblest  types  of  intellectual  man,  and  regards 
evolution,  not  as  a  finite,  but  as  an  infinite,  progress  of 
development  of  spiritual  as  well  as  of  physical  life." 

In  this  connection  I  also  quote  from  a  recent  work  by 
a  pupil  of  William  James,  the  greatest  philosopher  America 
has  produced  :* 

"It  is  a  rather  odd  fact  that  a  word  so  repeatedly  on 
the  lips  of  men  and  connoting,  apparently,  one  of  the  most 
obvious  phenomena  of  human  life  should  be  so  notoriously 
diificult  of  definition  as  is  the  word  Religion  . 
The  truth  is,  I  suppose,  that  'Religion'  is  one  of  those 
general  and  popular  terms  which  have  been  used  for  cen- 
turies to  cover  so  vague  and  indefinite  a  collection  of 
phenomena  that  no  definition  can  be  framed  which  will 
include  all  its  uses  and  coincide  with  everyone's  meaning 
for  it.  Hence  all  definitions  of  Religion  are  more  or  less 
arbitrary  and  should  be  taken  rather  as  postulates  than 
as  axioms.  In  this  sense  I  shall  myself  propose  a  tenta- 
tive definition  of  Religion,  not  at  all  as  a  final  or  complete 
statement,  nor  because  I  think  it  of  any  great  importance, 
but  because  I  intend  to  write  a  book  about  Religion,  and 

*The  Religious  Consciousness  (Chap.  1).  By  James  B.  Pratt. 
The  Macmillan  Co.,  New  York. 


NATURE  AND  RELIGION  179 

it  therefore  seems  only  fair  that  I  should  tell  the  reader 
in  advance,  not  what  the  word  means,  hut  what  I  am 
going  to  mean  hy  the  tvord.  The  definition  which  I  pro- 
pose   is    the    following:      Religion    is    the    serious    and 

SOCIAL  attitude  OF  INDIVIDUALS  OR  COMMUNITIES  TOWARD 
THE  POWER  OR  POWERS  WHICH  THEY  CONCEIVE  AS  HAVING 
ULTIMATE    CONTROL    OVER    THEIR    INTERESTS    AND    DESTINIES." 

It  is  not  the  definition  of  religion  to  which  I  would 
call  attention,  but  the  recognition  on  the  part  of  several 
leading  men  of  science  that  the  religious  state  of  mind  is 
a  reality  and  that  the  spiritual  life  is  an  essential  and  im- 
portant part  of  man.  The  importance  of  the  spiritual  side 
of  man  and  of  spiritual  values  has  been  expressed  recently 
by  one  of  the  leaders  of  American  scientific  thought,  Pro- 
fessor R.  A.  Millikan,  distinguished  physicist  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Chicago  :* 

"From  my  point  of  view  there  are  two  things  of  im- 
mense importance  in  this  world,  two  ideas  or  beliefs  upon 
which,  in  the  last  analysis,  the  weal  or  woe  of  the  race 
depends,  and  I  am  not  going  to  say  that  belief  in  the  possi- 
bilities of  scientific  progress  is  the  most  important.  The 
most  important  thing  in  the  world  is  a  belief  in  the  reality 
of  moral  and  spiritual  values.  It  was  because  we  lost 
that  belief  that  the  world  war  came,  and  if  we  do  not 
now  find  a  way  to  regain  and  strengthen  that  belief,  then 
science  is  of  no  value.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  also 
true  that  even  with  that  belief  there  is  little  hope  of 
progress  except  through  its  twin  sister,  only  second  in 
importance,  namely,  belief  in  the  spirit  and  the  method  of 
Galileo,  of  Newton,  of  Faraday,  and  of  the  other  great 
builders  of  this  modern  scientific  age — this  age  of  the 
understanding  and  the  control  of  nature,  upon  which,  let 
us  hope,  we  are  just  entering.  For  while  a  starving  man 
may  indeed  be  supremely  happy,  it  is  certain  that  he  can- 
not be  happy  very  long.  So  long  as  man  is  a  physical 
being,  his  spiritual  and  his  physical  well-being  cannot 
be  disentangled.  No  efforts  tow^ard  social  readjustments 
or  toward  the  redistribution  of  wealth  have  one  thousandth 
as  large  a  chance  of  contributing  to  human  well-being  as 
have  the  efforts  of  the  physicist,  the  chemist,  and  the  bio- 
logist toward  the  better  understanding  and  the  better 
control  of  nature." 


*Th0    Significance    of    Radium.     By    R.    A.    Millikan.     Science^ 
July  1,  1921,  pp.  1-8. 


180  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

This  was  first  brought  to  my  own  mind  in  a  scientific 
way  through  my  experiences  in  exploring  the  caverns  of 
central  and  southern  France,  and  witnessing  the  work  of 
man  inspired  by  something  akin  to  our  spiritual  nature, 
at  a  relatively  remote  period  of  human  development.  As 
a  consistent  evolutionist  I  am  naturally  a  believer  in  the 
very  gradual  growth  of  the  spiritual  and  religious  side  of 
man.  Two  years  ago  I  talked  this  question  over  with  an 
intelligent  divine  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  He 
was  inclined  to  fix  15,000  years  as  the  period  in  which 
the  religious  nature  of  man  first  manifested  itself.  We 
need  not  be  concerned,  either  with  fixing  a  period  for  the 
beginning  of  the  religious  and  spiritual  life  or  for  the 
equally  mysterious  question  of  where  the  development  of 
the  religious  and  spiritual  life  may  lead  us.  To  my  mind 
the  main  thing  for  human  progress  is  the  recognition  by 
all  men  that  man  has  a  spiritual  and  religious  nature 
which  we  must  take  account  of  in  our  studies  of  the  evolu- 
tion of  man,  past,  present,  and  future.  I  take  it  that  this 
is  about  as  far  as  most  of  my  scientific  confreres  are  ready 
to  go  at  present.  This  attitude  is  profoundly  different 
from  that  which  I  encountered  as  a  student  of  biology 
and  philosophy  in  Cambridge  University  forty  years  ago. 
I  recently  met  in  England  the  sole  survivor  of  the  brilliant 
group  of  men  who  dominated  British  thought  toward  the 
end  of  the  nineteenth  century;  as  soon  as  we  touched  on 
religion  and  philosophy  I  observed  that  all  the  embers  of 
the  long  gone  period  were  fanned  into  flame,  and  that  I 
was  speaking  with  a  naturalist  of  the  past  type,  not  of 
the  present  and  future. 

In  1863  a  prophetic  letter  was  addressed  by  Charles 
Kingsley  to  Frederick  Dennison  Maurice: 

"I  am  very  busy  working  out  points  of  Natural  Theology* 
by  the  strange  light  of  Huxley,  Darwin,  and  Lyell.  I 
think  I  shall  come  to  something  worth  having  before  I 
have  done.  But  I  am  not  going  to  reach  into  fruit  this 
seven  years,  for  this  reason:  The  state  of  the  scientific 
mind  is  most  curious;  Darwin  is  conquering  everywhere, 
and  rushing  in  like  a  flood,  by  the  mere  force  of  truth  and 
fact.  The  one  or  two  who  hold  out  are  forced  to  try  all 
sorts  of  subterfuges  as  to  fact,  or  else  by  evoking  the  odium 
theologicum.       .     .     .      But  they  find  that  now  they  have 


NATURE  AND  RELIGION  181 

got  rid  of  an  interfering  God — a  master-magician,  as  I 
call  it — they  have  to  choose  between  the  absolute  empire  of 
accident,  and  a  living,  immanent,  ever-working  God." 

In  his  conception  of  the  true  relation  between  our 
knowledge  of  nature  and  our  religious  sentiments,  Charles 
Kingsley  was  sixty  years  ahead  of  the  Church  of  his 
day.  If  his  influence  had  prevailed  we  would  have  been 
spared  sixty  years  of  vain  controversy  between  science 
and  theology. 


PART  III 


SUGGESTIONS  TO  THE   LEADER 
OF  THE  DISCUSSIONS 

INTRODUCTORY. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  these  discussions  to  make  a  somewhat 
thorough  analysis  of  the  philosophical  and  practical  basis 
of  the  ideas  current  in  Theism  and  Christianity,  and  to  en- 
deavor so  to  evaluate  them  as  to  show  their  compatibility 
with  modern  scientific  concepts.  The  task  is  not  easy,  nor 
can  the  outlines  in  the  nature  of  the  case  be  expressed  so 
that  he  who  runs  may  read. 

As  stated  by  P.  N.  Waggett  in  Religion  and  Science,  when 
he  was  asked  why  he  did  not  write  a  sixpenny  tract  in  de- 
fense of  Christianity,  he  replied  that  there  was  no  sixpenny 
defense  for  Christianity.  The  argument  to  be  worth  while 
at  all  for  college  students,  must  strike  down  to  the  very 
basis  of  their  philosophy.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  tht 
outlines  are  not  so  abstruse  as  to  baffle  the  college  student, 
certainly  not  after  the  first  collegiate  year.  The  ideas 
which  are  discussed,  he  will  find  to  be  the  same  that  he  has 
met  with  in  his  college  lecture  room.  At  any  rate,  I  have 
been  able  to  use  these  discussions  to  advantage  with  college 
and  normal  school  students,  groups  of  mature  persons  who 
have  not  had  a  college  education,  and  even  with  high  school 
students;  although  for  this  purpose  they  need  much  adap- 
tation. 

Any  harmonization  of  science  and  theology  may  pro- 
ceed from  one  of  two  points  of  view.  It  may  be  approached 
through  the  consideration  of  the  particular  sciences,  taking 
up  each  in  turn  and  showing  how  the  concepts  involved  in 
each  science  may  be  and  should  be  related  harmoniously  to 
the  Christian  system;  or  we  may  start  from  the  side  of 
theology,  interpreting  its  doctrines  in  the  terminology  of 
modern  science  and  philosophy. 


186  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

In  this  course  the  latter  method  has  been  adopted  for  two 
reasons.  In  the  first  place  I  feel  myself  entirely  unqualified 
to  discuss  intelligently  all  the  concepts  in  the  field  of  the 
modern  sciences,  and  in  the  second  place  such  a  discussion, 
if  it  were  possible,  would,  after  all,  have  given  the  student 
merely  a  fragmentary  and  unrelated  theology.  It  seems  to 
me  preferable  not  to  attempt,  in  such  a  course  as  this,  to  do 
more  than  establish  in  the  student  a  new  point  of  view,  a 
new  orientation,  a  new  method  whereby  he  can  go  on  to 
draw  his  own  deductions  as  to  particular  sciences. 

Tlie  leader,  however,  may  find  that  for  his  particular 
group  some  modification  of  this  method  is  necessary,  and 
may  find  it  advisable  to  particularize  somewhat  as  to  the 
scientific  concepts. 

It  has  been  very  commonly  found  to  be  the  case,  espe- 
cially among  college  students,  that  the  doubts  are  not  so 
much  intellectual  as  pragmatic.  The  student  does  not  find 
himself  in  the  position  of  wianting  to  believe  in  the  teadh- 
ings  of  Christianity  and  being  withheld  only  by  its  supposed 
conflict  with  science.  Rather,  he  is  not  persuaded  that  re- 
ligion is  at  all  w^orth  while  bothering  about,  that  it  does 
not  count  for  much  in  the  lives  of  its  adherents  nor  exert 
any  appreciable  influence  on  society,  and  that  in  any  event 
particular  doctrines  cannot  be  said  to  do  so.  To  these  ques- 
tions the  present  volume  is  not,  of  course,  primarily  ad- 
dressed. In  fact  these  questions  will  not  perhaps  find  their 
answer  upon  the  printed  page  at  all.  The  conclusive  argu- 
ment must  be  ad  hominem.  Every  man  must  solve  this 
problem  for  himself,  with  whatever  aid  can  be  afforded  to 
him  in  friendly  counsel,  since  it  is  primarily  a  problem  not 
of  the  intellect  but  of  the  will,  not  of  the  head  but  of  the 
heart.  Nevertheless,  it  is  possible  to  present  some  con- 
siderations as  to  the  value  of  religion,  and  this  has  been 
attempted  in  Discussion  II  and  in  the  essay  entitled  The 
Relevancy  of  Religion. 

The  method  of  development  of  each  particular  discussion 
is  substantially  the  same.  In  the  first  eight  it  is  necessary 
to  clear  away  possible  objections  from  the  point  of  view 
of  science.  For  example,  in  the  discussion  upon  Immortality 
one  must  first  demonstrate  that  there  is  no  valid  scientific 


SUGGESTIONS  TO   THE  LEADER  187 

objection  to  belief  in  immortality.  Tbat  done,  we  next  pro- 
ceed to  develop  the  positive  side  of  tbe  argument  out  of 
the  facts  of  human  religious  experience,  first  stating  what 
the  experience  is,  and  then  what  deductions  or  doctrines 
can  reasonably  be  drawn  from  it.  In  the  discussions  from 
IX  to  the  end,  there  is  no  such  apparent  conflict  with  science 
to  be  dealt  with,  and,  consequently,  the  method  of  develop- 
ment in  these  lectures  begins  with  the  religious  experience 
and  deduces  from  it  the  doctrine.  In  each  outline  the  para- 
graph entitled  "conclusion"  will  be  found  to  embody  the 
general  viewpoint  and  spirit  of  the  discussion.  It  is  be- 
lieved that  a  fairly  consistent  observance  of  this  method 
of  procedure  will  result  in  driving  home  to  the  student  the 
viewpoint,  that  doctrine  is  after  all  only  an  orderly  state- 
ment of  a  conclusion  from  the  facts  of  religious  experience. 
In  connection  with  each  discussion,  the  leader  should 
bring  out  the  practical  bearing  and  effect  of  the  particular 
doctrine  discussed.  (See  essay  entitled  The  Relevancy  of 
Religion,  Part  II).  I  have  endeavored  to  indicate  this 
practical  bearing  in  a  general  way ;  but  the  discussion  will 
usually  be  found  to  involve  an  argument  ad  hominem, 
which  cannot  well  be   foreseen. 

As  to  the  method  and  spirit  of  the  leader  no  finer  dis- 
cussion has  appeared  than  that  of  Father  Waggett  above 
referred  to.  One  can  hardly  do  justice  to  the  subject  with- 
out having  first  made  himself  familiar  with  that  book.  At- 
tention is  especially  called  to  Chapters  2,  3,  6,  and  7.  Any 
particular  warning  is  perhaps  needless,  that  the  method  of 
argumentation  which  Father  Waggett  calls  the  method  of 
anathema  is  perfectly  fruitless  in  a  course  of  this  sort.  Ab- 
solute frankness  and  open-mindedness  is  essential. 

A  few  suggestions  as  to  the  use  of  this  outline.  The  out- 
line is  in  part  a  guide  book  through  the  literature  referred 
to  in  these  notes.  The  leader  certainly,  the  student  if  he  will, 
should  be  familiar  with  these  books,  for  obviously  the  out- 
line is  merely  a  skeleton,  and  unless  supplemented  by  this 
outside  reading,  will  appear  to  be  full  of  arbitrary  and  un- 
reasoned assertions.  I  have  not  developed  the  argument 
except  where  it  departs  from  the  authorities  referred  to. 
This  in  part  accounts  for  the  fact  that  some  discussions 


188  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

are  presented  in  a  more  skeletonized  form  than  others.  The 
fuller  treatment  was  deemed  necessary  in  some  instances 
where  an  adequate  treatment  did  not  appear  to  be  at  hand 
in  any  available  book  on  the  subject.  I  would  not  have  it 
thought,  however,  that  I  endorse  all  that  will  be  found  in 
these  authorities,  nor  in  any  of  them.  For  example,  one 
can  admire  the  skill  with  which  Karl  Pearson  demonstrates 
the  subjective  nature  of  the  basic  ideas  of  science,  without 
following  him  in  his  systematic  skepticism.  So  far  as  i>os- 
si'ble,  however,  I  will  endeavor  to  point  out  in  these  notes 
just  where,  in  my  opinion,  the  several  writers  are  not  alto- 
gether to  be  relied  upon. 

I  have  sought  to  pin  the  discussions  down  to  earth  by 
stating  in  each  outline  some  question  which  the  student 
will  be  asking  himself.  The  practical  bearing  of  the  prob- 
lem and  of  the  solution  given  in  the  lecture  ought  to  be 
emphasized.  If  theology  be  not  practical,  there  is  really 
no  occasion  to  bother  about  it. 

This  outline  is  merely  a  suggestion.  One  using  it  will 
no  doubt  omit  much  that  may  not  prove  useful  for  his  pur- 
pose and  add  much  in  places  where  the  treatment  does  not 
seem  to  him  to  be  adequate.  He  will  above  all  clothe  it  with 
flesh  and  blood  from  his  own  rich  experience  and  breathe 
into  it  the  breath  of  life. 

The  discussions  may,  of  course,  be  split  up  at  will.  I 
have  found  it  possible  to  complete  the  entire  course  in  just 
about  the  length  of  the  ordinary  school  year. 

When  the  number  of  discussion  periods  is  limited,  so  as 
to  preclude  covering  the  entire  course  outlined,  it  has  been 
found  very  satisfactory  to  cover  the  first  four  discussions 
and  then  to  take  the  vote  of  the  group  as  to  which  of  the 
others  should  be  discussed.  Every  group  will  be  found  to 
have  its  own  peculiar  problems  and  point  of  view. 

I  should  strongly  advise  that  at  each  period  the  leader 
should  first  complete  what  he  has  to  say  and  then  allow  a 
short  time  for  open  discussion.  The  other  method,  of  taking 
the  whole  course  as  a  series  of  discussions,  has  the  ad- 
vantage of  appearing  more  spontaneous  and  drawing  out 
the  students  to  make  their  own  conclusions,  but  seems  to 
me  to  have  one  or  two  serious  objections.    In  the  first  place 


SUGGESTIONS   TO   THE  LEADER  189 

the  discussion  is  very  apt  to  go  off  at  a  tangent  and  at  the 
end  of  the  period  no  conclusion  has  been  arrived  at.  In  the 
second  place,  if  the  group  is  a  large  one,  the  discussion  is 
fairly  likely  to  be  monopolized  by  two  or  three  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  others,  and  their  interest  will  be  lost. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  the  interest  of  the  students 
might  be  increased  by  assigning  some  particular  aspect  of 
the  subject  involved  in  each  outline  to  particular  students 
to  investigate  and  report  upon  to  the  class.  I  have  never 
tried  this.  I  doubt  if  such  investigation  would  be  fruitful 
in  advance  of  tbe  discussion ;  but  the  leader  might  at  the 
close  of  each  period  assign  particular  features  of  the  dis- 
cusion  to  be  reported  upon  further  at  the  next  session, 

DISCUSSION   I. 

The  important  portions  of  this  discussion  are  sections  3 
and  5.  The  student  must  first  be  convinced  of  the  tremen- 
dous practical  bearing  of  theology  before  he  will  be  per- 
suaded to  devote  his  time  to  the  remainder  of  the  course. 

The  subject  of  "Modern  Doubt"  is  discussed  from  the  pop- 
ular standpoint,  in  Chapter  1,  of  Richard  L.  Swain's  What 
and  Where  is  God?  Also  in  the  opening  chapters  of  Percy 
Gardner's  Exploratio  Evangelica.  This  book,  which  was 
published  in  1899,  though  in  many  respects  valuable,  repre- 
sents a  point  of  view  which  has  been,  in  a  measure,  super- 
seded. There  has  been  a  general  reaction  against  some  of 
the  more  extreme  views  which  the  author  presents.  I  have 
endeavored  to  indicate  in  these  notes,  from  time  to  time, 
the  extent  to  which  I  believe  he  may  be  relied  upon. 

As  to  the  matter  covered  in  Discussions  I  to  IV  read 
chaps.  1-4  of  Charles  Gore's  Belief  in  God. 

At  this  time  attention  should  be  called  to  William  Kelly 
Wright's  A  Student's  Philosophy  of  Religion  (Macmillan, 
1922).  It  is  extremely  valuable  to  the  leader  of  a  discus- 
sion group.  It  deals  with  the  history,  psychology,  and 
philosophy  of  religion  and  of  some  of  the  principal  specific 
religious  beliefs.  Upon  each  point  the  author  summarizes 
the  divergent  opinions,  both  past  and  present,  and  then 
states  his  own  opinion.  A  valuable  bibliography  follows 
each  chapter.  The  book  is  condensed  yet  most  readable, 
and  should  prove  invaluable  as   a  book  of  reference.     It 


190  GRAMMAR   OF  BELIEF 

illustrates  the  new  and  sympathetic  viewpoint  of  philosophy 
toward  religion ;  such  a  book  would  not  have  been  written 
twenty  years  ago.  But  one  caveat  needs  to  be  observed. 
The  author's  definition  of  religion  as  man's  effort  to  con- 
serve social  values  is  too  utilitarian.  To  be  sure,  religion 
has  always  had  this  result,  as  the  author  points  out  from 
time  to  time ;  and  this  result  is  strong  proof  of  its  validity. 
Yet  certainly  this  end  was  not  the  principal  factor  in  any 
religion,  nor  was  it  ever  a  conscious  factor  at  all. 

NOTE  ON  THE  RELATION  OF  BELIEF 
TO  CONDUCT. 

The  man  in  the  street  is  prone  to  say  that  it  makes  no 
difference  what  you  believe  in  religious  matters;  that  it  is 
what  you  do  that  counts.  Of  course  the  latter  part  of  this 
assertion  is  unquestionably  true,  but  it  is  astonishing  that 
such  i>eople  fail  to  see  that  conduct  is  largely  conditioned 
by  belief.  This  is  the  more  astonishing  in  view  of  the  almost 
superstitious  faith  which  is  current  today  in  secular  edu- 
cation as  the  cure-all  for  the  ills  of  society.  Yet  the  opinion 
of  the  man  in  the  street  has  some  justification  in  view 
of  the  notion  which  has  obtained  in  some  quarters  as  to  the 
function  of  belief  in  the  scheme  of  salvation. 

The  Reformation,  upon  its  dogmatic  side,  consisted 
largely  in  a  reaction  against  the  overemphasis  which  had 
been  current  in  the  everyday  theology,  although  not  in  the 
careful  definitions  of  the  Church,  as  to  the  efficacy  of  exter- 
nal religion,  the  efficiency  of  works.  This  reaction  took  two 
main  courses.  With  Luther  it  resulted  in  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  alone;  with  Calvin  it  resulted  in  the 
doctrine  of  predestination.  According  to  the  Lutheran  the- 
ology, the  all-important  element  in  salvation  was  reliance  by 
the  individual  upon  divine  grace.  According  to  the  Cal- 
vanistic  theology,  grace  was  a  free  gift  of  God  bestowed  ac- 
cording to  his  absolute  wiJ,  regardless  even  of  any  seeking 
by  the  individual;  certain  men  were  predestined  for  salva- 
tion and  others  for  damnation  and  the  outcome  of  that 
lottery  could  never  he  determined  durmg  the  life  of  the  i/ndi- 
vidual,  nor  could  he  change  it  by  any  act  of  his. 

The  tendency  of  both  these  lines  of  thought  was  to  min- 
imize the  Importance  of  right  conduct,  to  postpone  salva- 


SUGGESTIONS  TO  THE  LEADER  191 

tioii  to  the  next  world.  Hence  in  the  common  thought  of 
the  followers  of  these  two  theologies,  although  doubtless  not 
in  the  thought  of  the  founders,  there  arose  a  feeling  that 
a  sort  of  magical  efficacy  resided  in  the  act  of  submission 
to  the  divine  will,  in  a  formal  assent  to,  and  affirmation 
of,  the  existence  of  God  and  his  overruling  power,  the  di- 
vinity of  Christ  and  his  saving  grace.  The  consequences 
of  such  a  formal  affirmation  would  be  apparent  in  the  next 
world,  but  not  necessarily  in  this.  These  ideas  became  part 
of  the  religious  atmosphere  of  the  seventeenth,  eighteenth, 
and  nineteenth  centuries,  and  were  shared  to  a  great  ex- 
tent by  members  of  Churches  which  did  not  acknowledge 
the  spiritual  leadership  of  Luther  or  Calvin. 

It  is  this  false  and  magical  view  against  which  modern 
opinion  has  reacted.  The  reaction  has  gone  to  the  other  ex- 
treme of  denying  any  potency  to  intellectual  belief.  Of 
course,  intellectual  belief  does  largely  condition  conduct, 
and  hence  is  a  factor  in  salvation ;  but  it  is  a  factor  only 
insofar  as  it  does  influence  conduct,  and  the  extent  of  that 
influence  can  be  measured  here  and  now  and  not  entirely  in 
the  next  world.  In  the  words  of  the  Master,  men  do  not 
gather  grapes  from  thorns. 

The  extent  to  which  belief  influences  conduct  depends 
upon  the  vitality  of  the  belief,  the  certitude  with  which  it 
is  held.  If  our  belief  in  immortality  amounts  merely  to  a 
pious  hope,  it  enters  but  little  into  our  everyday  life.  If, 
however,  it  amounts  to  a  certitude  as  great  as  our  belief  in 
our  present  existence,  it  will  inevitably  enter  into  every 
judgment  as  to  our  course  of  conduct.  We  will  plan  for  the 
life  both  here  and  hereafter  so  as  to  bring  about  its  full 
fruition,  not  merely  within  the  short  span  of  three-score 
years  and  ten,  but  within  a  future  indeflnitely  expanded; 
we  will  relegate  to  its  proper  place  the  question  of  what  we 
shall  eat  and  what  we  shall  drink  and  wherewithal  we  shall 
be  clothed. 

NOTE   ON   THE    MEANING    OF   THE   WORDS   DOGMA 
AND  DOCTRINE. 

Strictly  speaking  these  words  are  not  synonymous.  Web- 
ster's Dictionary  differentiates  them  thus :  "Doctrine  is 
that  which  is  taught,  put  forth  as  true,  and  supported  by  a 


192  GRAMMAR   OF  BELIEF 

teacher,  a  school,  or  a  sect.  A  dogma  is  a  doctrine  formally 
stated;  a  definite,  established,  and  authorative  tenet.  In 
their  ecclesiastical  application  it  is  usual  to  distinguish 
between  doctrine,  any  teaching  or  opinion,  and  dogma,  sudi 
teaching  as  a  part  of  the  confession  of  a  Ohurch." 

It  is,  therefore,  apparent  that  the  formula  which  epit- 
omizes the  facts  of  religious  experience,  the  antithesis  of 
a  natural,  or  scientific,  law,  is  not  a  doctrine,  but  a  dogma. 
Thus  one  would  not,  strictly,  speak  of  the  doctrine  of  grav- 
itation or  of  the  Trinity;  but  one  might  speak  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Newton  or  Einstein  about  gravitation,  or  of  the 
doctrine  of  Arius  or  Athanasius  about  the  Trinity.  Never- 
theless, the  word  "dogma"  has  acquired,  wrongly  as  1  be- 
lieve, the  connotation  of  a  teaching,  arbitrary,  unreasoned, 
and  even  unreasonable.  So  that,  for  the  purpose  of  these 
discussions  the  word  "doctrine"  has  usually  been  employed. 

DISCUSSION  II. 

This  discussion  is  based  on  Andrew  D.  White's  Warfare 
of  Science  with  Theology  in  Christendom.  If  i)ossible,  the 
leader  should  be  familiar  with  this  book,  but  if  a  shorter 
discussion  of  the  same  subject  is  preferred,  it  may  be  found 
in  Hardwick's  Warfare  of  Science  and  Religion,  which  is  an 
S.  P.  C.  K.  Publication.  For  the  ordinary  student  the  ma- 
terial in  section  1  will  not  require  particular  emphasis.  He 
is  already  all  too  familiar  with  the  confiict.  But  students 
will  not  infrequently  be  found  to  have  no  adequate  idea  that 
there  is  such  a  confiict.  In  that  case,  for  their  own  protec- 
tion in  the  future,  they  ought  to  be  thoroughly  convinced  of 
the  reality  of  the  problem,  even  at  the  cost  of  making  the 
leader  appear  as  a  destructive,  rather  than  a  constructive, 
critic.  If  it  is  desirable  to  go  into  this  matter  in  detail, 
one  of  the  subjects  covered  by  section  1  might  be  assigned 
to  each  member  of  the  group  to  investigate  and  present 
to  the  class. 

Upon  the  question  of  scientific  doubt  and  the  application 
of  the  scientific  method  to  dogma  read  Waggett's  Religion 
and  Science,  chaps.  1  and  2  of  Spens'  Belief  and  Practice, 
and  tlie  opening  chapters  of  Percy  Gardner's  Exploratio 
Evangelica.  Also,  see  the  essay  on  Dogma  and  the  first  part 
of  the  essay  on  The  Nicene  Idea  of  Ood  in  Part  II. 


SUGGESTIONS  TO   THE  LEADER  193 

NOTE  ON  THE  PRESENT  ATTITUDE  OF  SCIENTISTS 

Thi&'  is,  i)erliaps,  the  appropriate  place  to  express  a 
warning  against  a  too  sweeping  interpretation  of  the  state- 
ment contained  in  the  outline  of  this  discussion  that  science 
is  realizing  its  limitations  and  is  ceasing  to  philosophize. 
This  statement  is  true  in  the  main  and  is,  I  believe,  be- 
coming increasingly  true.  Probably  no  scientist  of  the 
attainments  of  Ernest  Haeckel  would  today  announce  as 
his  deliberate  judgment  the  materialistic  philosophy  set 
forth  in  The  Riddle  of  the  Universe.  Yet,  there  are,  of 
course,  scientists,  as  there  are  theologians,  who  do  not 
recognize  their  limitations.  In  the  less  circumspect  state- 
ments of  even  careful  scientists  one  also  finds  occasional 
lapses  into  unguarded  assertions  capable  of  a  positively 
materialistic  interpretation,  which  they  would  themselves 
probably  be  the  first  to  repudiate.  Frequently  in  the  class- 
room the  instructor  deems  it  necessary  to  make  sweeping 
statements  with  a  view  to  challenging  the  attention  of  the 
students,  or  breaking  down  preconceptions  which  interfere 
with  their  disinterested  investigation  of  the  phenomena 
with  which  he  is  dealing, — statements  which,  if  not  pos- 
itively materialistic,  at  any  rate  guard  with  incredible  lax- 
ity against  such  interpretation. 

This  has  been  the  case  in  all  the  sciences  which  deal 
with  life,  notably  biology  and  psychology.  Biologists,  how- 
ever, show  an  increasing  tendency  to  acknowledge  the  lim- 
itations of  a  purely  mechanical  explanation  of  vital  proc- 
esses, an  increasing  disinclination  to  philosophize  and  an 
exceedingly  conscientious  and  open-minded  investigation  of 
phenomena.  In  psychology,  on  the  other  hand,  the  line 
between  physics  and  metaphysics  is  often  difficult  to  perceive 
and  the  temptation  to  overstep  it  is  constantly  present  and 
seems  to  have  proved  well-nigh  irresis table.  So  that  in  the 
subject  matter  covered  by  discussions  VII,  VIII,  and  XVI 
it  would  be  by  no  means  fair  to  say  that  the  conclusions  of 
most  psychologists  and  theologians  are  in  agreement.  It  ap- 
pears to  be  the  tendency  of  most  psychologists,  though  by  no 
means  of  all  of  them,  to  exclude  any  non-mechanical  element 
in  mentality,  not  only  for  the  purposes  of  experiment,  in 
which  such  a  procedure  is  quite  proper,  but  also  as  an  ulti- 


194  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

mate  philosophy.  Their  philosophy  does  not  express  itself 
in  the  crudely  materialistic  terms  of  fifty  years  ago,  that 
the  brain  secretes  thought  as  the  liver  secretes  bile,  or  that 
thought  is  an  epi-phenomenon,  a  by-product,  of  fermenta- 
tions in  the  brain,  but  in  the  more  subtle  dogma  that  the 
self  is  completely  described  as  the  stream  of  consciousness. 

This  attitude  is  very  easy  to  understand.  The  field  of 
mental  phenomena  has  been  the  last  stronghold  of  obscur- 
antism and  is  still  the  happy  hunting  ground  of  all  sorts 
of  fantastic  vagaries.  Scientific  psychology  has  had  a 
hard  fight  and  cannot  be  expected  quite  yet  to  assume  the 
dispassionate  and  judicial  attitude.  It  owes  whatever 
progress  it  has  made  to  the  employment  of  the  mechanical 
hypothesis  and  the  limit  to  the  use  of  this  hypothesis  has  not 
yet  been  reached.  It  would  indeed  be  unfortunate  if  this 
line  of  investigation  should  be  foreclosed.  Nevertheless, 
there  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  results  of  psychological 
investigation  to  justify  the  dictum  that  mental  phenomena 
are  merely  mechanical,  a  fact  which  is  recognized  by  such 
psychologists  as  James,  Bergson,  and  others.  In  fact  data 
are  accumulating  which  can  only  by  constantly  increasing 
ingenuity  be  reconciled  to  that  hypothesis.  So  that  one  may 
be  permitted  to  prophesy  that  within  the  next  few  years  the 
basic  metaphysical  ideas  current  among  psychologists  will 
be  radically  modified.  Meanwhile,  it  is  suflScient  to  say  that 
the  criterion  of  valid  dogma,  which  I  have  stated  to  be  that 
it  shall  be  congruent  with  the  legitimate  conclusions  of 
science,  does  not  by  any  means  require  that  it  should  be 
harmonized  with  the  present  philosophical  position  of  some 
psychologists. 

DISCUSSION  III. 

This  discussion  and  the  two  following  should  be  thor- 
oughly understood  by  the  students,  as  they  lie  at  the  basis 
of  everything  that  follows.  As  pointed  out  by  Father  Wag- 
get  in  the  book  cited,  the  only  prophylactic  against  scien- 
tific doubt  is  innoculation  with  a  reasonable  idealistic  phi- 
losophy. It  is  that  point  of  view  which  I  have  endeavored 
to  present  to  the  student  in  these  three  discussions.  If  that 
point  of  view  is  not  grasped,  the  argumentation  throughout 


SUGGESTIONS  TO   THE  LEADER  195 

the  course  will  fall  upon  absolutely  deaf  ears.  The  purpose 
of  this  particular  discussion  is  to  jar  the  student  loose 
from  the  current  conception  of  the  man  in  the  street,  a  con- 
ception which  is  augmented  rather  than  diminished  by  his 
college  lectures,  that  there  is  something  particularly  ob- 
jective about  science  and  the  concepts  that  lie  at  the  basis 
of  science,  in  comparison  to  the  concepts  at  the  basis  of 
theology.  I  want  him  to  cease  to  think  that  matter  is  the 
only  ultimate  reality;  and  hence  in  this  discussion  I  have 
endeavored  to  show  the  subjective  and  relative  character  of 
the  concepts  of  science.  The  only  thorough-going  discussion 
of  this  point  of  view  mth  which  I  am  familiar  is  Karl  Pear- 
son's Grammar  of  Science,  especially  the  first  eight  chapters. 
No  one  should,  I  believe,  attempt  to  present  this  course 
without  being  familiar  with  that  hook.  Discussion  IV  is 
intended  to  present  an  antidote  to  the  skeptical  conclusions 
of  PeaTSon.    These  by  no  means  follow  from  his  argument. 

DISCUSSION  IV. 

In  this  discussion  the  effort  has  been  made  to  present 
a  view-point  of  the  theory  of  knowledge  which  shall  afford 
a  basis  for  an  idealistic  philosophy  and  theology.  If  the 
student  is  thoroughly  innoculated  with  such  a  philosophy, 
he  can  be  trusted  to  study  his  various  sciences  in  the  light 
of  it  and  make  his  own  application  of  it.  Hence  this  dis- 
cussion is  of  prime  importance,  and  should  be  given  such 
time  as  is  necessary  for  thorough  understanding.  Feeling 
that  an  outline  is  inadequate  to  present  my  argument,  I  have 
written  the  subject  matter  out  in  full  in  the  essay  with  this 
title  contained  in  Part  II.  In  addition,  both  leader  and 
students  should  read  the  essays  contained  in  William  James' 
volume,  The  Will  to  Believe,  especially  the  essays  entitled 
The  Sentiment  of  Rationality  and  The  Dilemma  of  Deter- 
minism. (James  uses  "sentiment"  with  the  same  connota- 
tion with  which  I  use  "sense".)  Read,  also,  chaps.  3  to  5 
of  Will  Spens'  Belief  and  Practice.  See  also  chapter  18  of 
Wright's  A  Student's  Philosophy  of  Religimi. 

A  graphical  statement  of  the  points  of  similarity  and 
difference  between  a  scientific  law  and  a  religious  doctrine 
may  be  given  as  follows : 


196 


A.      scientific      law 
A  religious  doctrine 


GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 
WHAT  IS   IT? 

is    an    explanation 
is    an    explanation 


ON   WHAT    IS   IT 

BASED? 
of  the  facts  of  ex- 
perience 

of  the  facts  of  ex- 
perience 


HOW  ARE  THE 
FACTS  VIEWJED? 
from,    tlie    outside 


from      the      inside 


WHAT     DOES     IT 
DO? 

so     as     to     satisfy 


so     as     to     satisfy 


DISCUSSION  V. 


WHAT    DOES     IT 

SATISFY? 
our   senses   for   ra- 
tionality,    activity, 
etc. 

our  senses  for  right, 
justice,  purpose, 
love,  reverence,  etc. 


The  point  of  view  of  this  discussion  is  to  furnish  a  sort 
of  anchor  to  windward  for  students  who  are  unable  to 
bring  themselves  to  agree  thoroughly  with  the  philosophy 
presented  in  the  previous  discussion.  The  outline  follows 
very  closely  William  James'  essay.  The  Will  to  Believe,  con- 
tained in  the  volume  of  the  same  name.  It  may  appear 
inconsistent  to  taper  off  an  argument  which  presents  a 
very  positive  view  of  the  validity  of  religious  concepts 
with  an  invitation  to  the  student,  at  least  whether  he  be- 
lieves this  or  not,  to  bet  his  future  course  of  life  on  the 
possibility  of  its  being  true, — which  is,  in  the  last  analysis, 
what  Jame^  position  amounts  to.  As  a  practical  matter, 
however,  this  argument  will  appeal  to  very  many  students ; 
and  it  is  essentially  valid,  because  it  is  an  invitation  to 
give  the  religious  hypothesis  the  test  of  experiment:  and 
that  experimient  cannot  be  performed  unless  the  student 
will  hold  it  for  true  and  act  upon  it.  Some  scientific  men, 
adopting  this  position,  never  get  beyond  it,  holding  that  re- 
ligion must  be  true  and  yet  that  the  universe  must  be  merely 
mechanical.  They  keep  their  science  in  one  mental  room 
and  their  religion  in  another.  That  position  is  unsatisfac- 
tory; but  it  makes  it  possible  for  the  student  to  perform 
the  experiment.    Having  won  him  so  far,  the  leader  has  at 


SUGGESTIONS  TO   THE  LEADER  197 

least  obtained  his  interest  to  hear  him  to  the  end,  and  he 
may  then  be  convinced  that  the  universe  must  not  be  merely 
mechanical. 

This  volume  of  essays  by  James  ought  to  be  available 
to  the  students,  for  his  style  is  delightful  and  persuasive. 

DISCUSSION  VI. 

The  first  three  sections  are  a  resum6  of  John  Fiske's 
The  Idea  of  God.  He  treats  this  theme  more  fully  in  Out- 
lines of  Cosmic  Philosophy,  but  for  practical  purposes  the 
smaller  volume  is  better.  Fiske's  ideas  as  to  the  religious 
effect  of  the  two  ideas  of  transcendence  and  immanence  are 
valid  and  his  general  treatment  of  the  subject  is  very  val- 
uable. Modern  investigators,  however,  do  not  agree  with 
him  as  to  the  history  of  the  development  of  the  ideas.  An 
excellent  summary  of  the  latest  scholarship  will  be  found 
in  part  I  of  Wright's  A  Student's  Philosophy  of  Religion. 

Sections  4  and  5  take  the  matter  up  where  Fiske  leaves 
off  and  present  positive  arguments  for  belief  in  God.  This 
phase  is  handled  with  delightful  adequacy  in  the  volume 
entitled  The  Being  and  Attributes  of  God  in  Francis  J. 
Hall's  Dogmatic  Theology.  From  the  point  of  view  of 
religious  experience  see  William  James'  Varieties  of  Re- 
ligious experience.  A  remarkably  good  popular  presentation 
of  the  question  of  the  existence  of  God  is  found  in  Richard  L. 
Swain's  What  and  Where  is  God,  particularly  Chapter  2. 
Read  Chapters  2  to  10  of  R.  W.  and  Paul  Micou's  Basic 
Ideas  in  Religion.  Psychology  of  belief  in  God  is  dis- 
cussed in  Chapter  10  of  James  B.  Pratt's  The  Religious 
Consciousness.  A  philosophical  treatment,  but  in  enter- 
taining style,  is  to  be  found  in  J.  R.  lUingworth's  Person- 
ality, Human  and  Divine  and  Divine  Immanence.  In  this 
connection  chapter  3  of  Charles  Gore's  Belief  in  God  is 
valuable ;  although  I  find  myself  unable  to  agree  with  the 
rationale  of  inspiration  and  miracles,  or  with  the  belief 
in  devils,  as  set  forth  in  subsequent  chapters  of  that  book. 
Excellent  presentations  of  the  arguments  for  the  theistic 
point  of  view  in  the  light  of  modern  philosophy  will  be 
found  in  chapter  19  of  Wright's  A  Student's  Philosophy  of 
Religion  and  in  Vernon  F.  Storr's  The  Argument  from 
Design   (Longmans,  Green  &  Co.). 


198  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

DISCUSSION  VII. 

Read  the  essay  entitled  The  Dilemma  of  Determinism  in 
TJie  Will  to  Believe,  above  cited,  also  Chapter  18  of  R.  W. 
and  iPaul  Micou's  Basic  Ideas  in  Religion.  This  volume  is 
exceedingly  important  for  the  thorough  student,  although 
rather  too  extended  for  the  average  college  man.  See  also 
chapter  20  of  Wright's  A  Student's  Philosophy  of  Religion. 

NOTE  ON  THE  MEANING  OF  "NATURAL  LAW." 

A  source  of  misunderstanding  exists  in  the  use  of  the 
word  "law"  in  the  sciences.  It  is  generally  recognized  that 
it  does  not  connote  an  ordinance  or  statute  fixed  by  author- 
ity, and  yet  this  connotation  is  continually  creeping  sub- 
consciously into  our  reasoning  and  must  be  guarded  against. 
There  is  a  constant  tendency  to  think  of  the  phenomenon  as 
caused  by  the  law,  instead  of  the  law  as  a  description  of 
the  course  of  the  phenomenon, 

A  much  more  frequent  occasion  of  loose  thinking  in  the 
sciences  is  due  to  failure  to  recognize  that  the  word  has  a 
very  different  meaning  in  the  organic  sciences  than  in  the 
inorganic  sciences.  In  the  latter  it  is  a  formula  which  epit- 
omizes an  invariable  sequence,  while  in  the  organic  sciences 
it  is  a  formula  which  expresses  merely  an  average,  or  mean, 
sequence.  Thus,  Newton's  Laws  of  Motion  and  Boyle's  Law 
of  Gases  express  sequences  which  occur  in  every  indi- 
vidual case  and  enable  us  to  predict  the  course  of  the  se- 
quence with  absolute  accuracy.  Mendel's  Law  of  Heredity, 
on  the  contrary,  expresses  merely  an  average  sequence,  based 
on  the  prohaMlity  of  certain  combinations  of  determiners  ap- 
pearing in  the  chromosomes  in  the  germ  plasm  of  the  off- 
spring. In  formulas  based  on  the  actions  of  social  groups, 
such  as  the  "laws"  of  economics  and  sociology,  the  indi- 
vidual action  is  still  more  indeterminate  and  the  number  of 
instances  required  to  obtain  a  true  average  is  exceedingly 
greater.  Thus,  Gresham's  Law  by  no  means  predicts 
what  any  individual  will  do  with  his  money,  nor  does  the 
Law  of  Malthus  determine  how  many  offspring  he  will  leave. 
Hence,  when  we  speak  of  society  being  governed  by  economic 
or  social  laws,  we  use  the  word  in  a  Pickwickian  sense; 
we  do  not  in  the  least  imply  that  the  wills  of  men  are  co- 


SUGGESTIONS  TO  THE  LEADER  199 

erced,  or  their  course  of  behavior  predetermined,  by 
forces  beyond  their  control.  All  that  we  mean  to  say  is  tlmt 
in  a  given  situation  reasonable  men  will,  more  often  than 
not,  arrive  at  similar  judgments  as  to  what  action  to  pursue. 

NOTE  ON  SCIENTIFIC  DETERMINISM.  The  theory 
of  theological  determinism,  or  predestination,  which  so  long 
beclouded  religion,  has  been  tacitly  abandoned  and  to-day 
hardly  needs  refutation.  Philosophical  determinism  has  re- 
ceived such  adequate  treatment  at  the  hands  of  William 
James  in  his  volume  entitled  The  Will  to  Believe,  that  to 
add  anything  were  an  impertinence.  There  remains,  how- 
ever, scientific  determinism  in  its  several  forms,  which  de- 
mands consideration. 

By  scientific  determinism  I  mean  the  theory  that  hu- 
man conduct  is  completely  determined  by  bodily  states  and 
external  stimuli.  This  theory  meets  one  in  several  fields: 
biology,  anatomy,  psychology,  and  sociology.  It  would  be 
obviously  impossible  in  a  brief  note  to  do  more  than  present 
a  few  suggestions  to  indicate  that  absolute  determinism  is 
not  a  necessary  conclusion  from  the  data  of  any  of  these 
sciences. 

In  biology,  we  learn  that  many  characteristics,  such  as 
color  of  hair  and  eyes,  which  develop  in  the  life  of  the  in- 
dividual, arise  out  of  certain  "determiners"  which  are  to  be 
found  in  the  chromosome  of  the  germ.  Exactly  what  these 
"determiners"  are,  or  how  they  operate  to  produce  the  unit 
characteristics  in  later  life,  has  not  been  worked  out.  (The 
latest  conclusions  are  set  forth  in  Conkling  Heredity  and 
Environment,  ana  more  in  detail  in  Thos.  H.  Morgan's  The 
Physical  Basis  of  Heredity.)  Biologists  expect,  also,  to  be 
able  to  demonstrate  that  the  growth  of  every  portion  of  the 
body  of  the  individual  will  be  found  to  be  related  to  some 
specific  structure  or  quality  of  the  germ.  This  last  con- 
clusion is  as  yet  hypothesis.  Yet  granting  it  to  be  true, 
biologists  will  merely  have  gone  a  little  further  in  describ- 
ing the  manner  in  which  development  takes  place ;  they  will 
have  filled  in  a  few  of  the  interstices  in  the  description  of 
the  process.  For  example,  the  presence  of  the  blue-eye  de- 
terminer in  the  germ  is  not  the  cause  of  blue  eyes  in  the 
child  at  the  age  of  ten  years  in  any  other  sense  than  are 
his  blue  eyes  at  that  age  the  cause  of  his  having  blue  eyes 


200  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

at  the  age  of  twenty.  There  is  as  yet  no  direct  experi- 
mental evidence  that  human  mental  characteristics  arise 
out  of  determiners  in  the  germ ;  and  in  the  nature  of  the 
case  it  will  be  extremely  difficult,  perhaps  impossible,  to  ob- 
tain such  evidence.  There  is,  however,  abundant  statistical 
evidence  for  the  inheritance  of  mental  characteristics  and 
recent  psychological  study  seems  to  have  isolated  certain 
unit  mental  traits,  which  are  entirely  analogous  to  Mende- 
lian  characteristics.  To  such  evidence  the  same  conclusions 
apply.  If  it  should  be  demonstrated,  for  example,  that  po- 
etical genius  in  a  lad  of  ten  answered  to  some  antecedent 
quality  in  the  germ,  that  antecedent  quality  would  not  be 
the  cause  of  the  lad's  genius  in  any  other  sense  than  is  his 
budding  genius  at  ten  the  cause  of  his  developed  poetical 
ability  at  twenty. 

In  anatomy  and  psychology,  we  learn  that  bodily  states 
and  mental  states  are  interdependent.  But  William  James — 
who  was,  by  the  way,  a  physiologist  before  he  became  a 
psychologist — has  pointed  out  that  it  does  not  by  any 
means  follow  that  the  bodily  state  causes  the  mental  state 
(James,  Human  Immortality) .  To  be  sure,  the  bodily  state 
conditions  the  mental  state,  that  is  to  say,  it  sets  certain 
limits.  But  science  has  never  demonstrated,  and  has  no 
right  to  conclude,  that  the  interdependence  between  bodily 
and  mental  states  is  absolute.  The  difference  between  a 
condition  and  a  cause  may  be  illustrated  in  this  way:  I 
desire  to  walk  across  the  room.  If  my  legs  are  paralyzed 
I  will  be  unable  to  do  so ;  if  they  are  not  paralyzed  I  may 
do  so.  My  freedom  of  will  in  that  respect  is  conditioned  on 
my  having  normal  legs.  Yet  the  fact  that  I  possess  normal 
legs  does  not  cause  me  to  walk  across  the  room,  since  I 
am  still  free  to  remain  where  I  am. 

In  sociology,  we  learn  that  the  influence  of  environment 
upon  the  individual  is  very  great,  often  overwhelmingly 
great.  Some  sociologists  contend  that  its  influence  is  so 
great  that,  given  two  individuals  with  the  same  hereditary 
equipment,  their  behavior  throughout  life  will  vary  abso- 
lutely with  environment.  But  for  this  they  have  not  a  scin- 
tilla of  proof,  either  experimental  or  statistical.  It  is 
mere  surmise  and  appears  to  run  counter  to  our  every-day 
exi)erience. 


SUGGESTIONS   TO   THE  LEADER  201 

In  short,  absolute  scientific  determinism  has  not  been 
demonstrated  and  cannot  fairly  be  deduced  from  any  pres- 
ent scientific  knowledge.  We  do  know  that  our  wills  are 
conditioned  by  many  factors  of  heredity  and  environment. 
But  any  careful  scientist  will  aver  that  there  is  no  scientific 
evidence  that  the  will  is  not  free  within  limits. 

The  position  outlined  in  this  note  has  been  very  fully  and 
cogently  set  forth  by  Professor  Edwin  G.  Conklin  in  his 
presidential  address  before  the  American  Society  of  Natur- 
alists in  1913,  and  reprinted  by  him  under  the  title  of  "Gen- 
etics and  Ethics"  as  chapter  6  of  his  Heredity  and  Environ- 
ment.   That  chapter  is  exceedingly  valuable  at  this  point. 

DISCUSSION  VIII. 

The  second  and  third  sections  are  based  on  William 
James'  Personal  Immortality.  This  is  a  short  and  delight- 
fully vn*itten  essay  and  ought  to  be  read  by  the  students 
themselves  to  remove  the  supposed  scientific  objections  to 
immortality.  Coming  from  a  physiologist  and  psychologist,  it 
should  have  particular  weight.  Another  popular  presenta- 
tion is  Chapter  11  of  Lyman  Abbott's  The  Theology  of  an 
Evolutionist;  also  Chapters  5  and  6  of  Swain's  What  and 
Where  is  God.  For  a  more  philosophical  and  thorough  dis- 
cussion see  Chapter  15  of  Micou's  Basic  Ideas  in  Religion; 
also  Henri  Bergson's  Mind  Energy;  also  chapter  22  of 
Wright's  A  Student's  Philosophy  of  Religion.  Psychology 
of  belief  in  immortality  is  discussed  in  chapter  11  of 
James  B.  Pratt's  The  Religious  Consciousness;  also  in  the 
volume  of  essays  entitled  Concerning  Immortality  by  a 
group  of  English  writers  (Macmillan).  It  might  prove  of 
interest  at  this  point  to  devote  one  session  to  open  dis- 
cussion of  the  question  of  spiritualistic  manifestations. 
Men  who  were  in  the  service  during  the  World  War  will 
understand  what  I  mean  by  an  intuition  of  immortality. 
I  observed  that  the  recruit,  after  two  or  three  months  of 
doubt  and  dread,  commonly  achieved  an  awareness  of  the 
reality  of  things  unseen  and  an  assurance  of  immortality 
which  produced  that  calm  assurance  of  mind  that  has 
often  been  wrongly  described  as  fatalism.  The  soldier  was 
not  a  fatalist,  he  was  only  a  believer.     I  have  never  known 


202  GRAMMAR   OF  BELIEF 

one  who  had  achieved  this  faith  to  fall  a  victim  to  a 
neurosis.  A  statistical  study  of  the  subject  would  have 
been  interesting. 

DISCUSSION  IX. 

Some  of  us  have  become  accustomed  to  take  the  theory 
of  evolution  for  granted.  The  Fundamentalist  controversy 
has,  however,  temporarily  reopened  the  issue.  The  evidence 
upon  which  the  theory  of  biological  evolution  is  based  has 
been  presented  in  popular  form,  and  without  polemical  in- 
tent (the  book  was  written  in  1916),  in  Thomas  Hunt 
Morgan's  Critique  of  the  Theory  of  Evolution. 

For  a  popular  presentation  of  the  theory  and  factors  of 
biological  evolution  see  H.  W.  Conn's  The  Method  of  Evolu- 
tion, still  useful  though  somewhat  out  of  date.  For  a 
thorough  discussion  of  the  process  of  biological  evolution 
from  the  point  of  view  of  a  thurough- going  scientist,  who 
is  at  the  same  time  sympathetic  to  the  non-mechanical  view- 
point, read  J.  Arthur  Thomson's  The  System  of  Animate 
Nature.  The  style  of  this  book  is  delightful  and  the  sub- 
ject-matter accurate.  From  the  same  point  of  view,  present- 
ing a  still  more  anti-mechanical  interpretation  of  evolution, 
read  Henri  Bergson's  Creative  Evolution.  For  a  thorough 
discussion  of  the  bearing  of  evolution  upon  theology,  see 
the  first  part  of  F.  J.  Hall's  Creation  and  Man  in  his  Dog- 
matic Theology.  For  a  popular  discussion  of  evolution  from 
the  standpoint  of  religion,  read  Lyman  Abbott's  The  The- 
ology of  an  Evolutionist,  especially  for  this  discussion. 
Chapter  2.  For  a  more  thorough-going  discussion.  Chapters 
3  to  5  of  Micou's  Basic  Ideas  in  Religion.  In  regard  to  the 
theory  and  actuality  of  miracles,  read  Chapters  9  and  10 
of  Lyman  Abbott's  The  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist;  Chap- 
ter 18  of  Percy  Gardner's  Exploratio  Evangelica ;  and  pages 
443  to  451  of  Micou's  Basic  Ideas  in  Religion.  These  ci* 
tations  present  the  matter  from  several  angles.  For  th^ 
rationalistic  viewpoint  of  fifty  years  ago,  see  Lecky's  Growth 
of  Rationalism  In  Europe. 

The  glaring  defect  in  the  treatment  of  the  subject  of 
miracles  by  Lecky,  and  to  a  less  extent  in  the  treatment 
by  Gardner,  is  that  they  arbitrarily  accept  or  reject  portions 
of  the  gospel  narrative  solely  in  accordance  with  whether 


SUQOESTIONS   TO   THE  LEADER  203 

the  event  descriLK\  •  ,i'Jii<iLs  witli  iLoir  a  pilot i  ijoiiiii  of 
possibility.  This  is  pointed  out  by  N.  J.  Figgis  in  his 
Civilization  at  the  Crossroads  and  by  Charles  Gore  in 
his  Belief  in  Ood.  For  example,  they  reject  the  account  of 
the  miracle  of  the  loaves  and  fishes,  because  it  appears  to 
be  impossible.  Yet  the  story  is  contained  in  all  four  Gospels. 
Furthermore,  the  Gospel  of  Mark  contains  accounts  of  two 
such  feedings,  which  look  like  two  independent  traditions 
of  the  same  act,  and  hence  add  enormously  to  the  value  of 
the  evidence.  Finally,  if  such  an  event  did  take  place,  there 
must  have  been  hundreds  of  witnesses  living  when  the 
evangelist  wrote.  This  miracle,  therefore,  on  the  face  of 
the  record,  becomes  one  of  the  best  authenticated  facts  of 
Jesus'  life.  Such  treatment  of  the  evidence  as  would  be 
involved  in  regarding  this  account  as  mere  allegory  would 
render  futile  any  attempt  to  get  at  the  facts  of  Jesus'  life, 
or  indeed  of  any  event  in  history.  On  the  other  hand,  it  does 
not  at  all  follow,  as  argued  by  Figgis  and  Gore,  that  we 
are  obliged  to  conclude  that  the  occurrence  was  a  miracle 
in  the  old  sense  of  being  a  clean  break  in  the  continuity  of 
material,  phenomenal  causation.  It  does  seem  to  be  beyond 
dispute  that  some  real  occurrence  lies  at  the  basis  of  these 
accounts;  but  as  to  just  what  happened  and  how  it  hap- 
pened, the  forces  involved,  we  must  await  further  enlight- 
enment. The  same  thing  may  be  said  fOr  some  of  the  other 
accounts  of  miracles. 

This  discussion  should  cover  two  periods.  At  the  first 
period  some  member  of  the  group  might  lead  a  discussion 
as  to  the  scientific  conclusions  concerning  organic  evolu- 
tion. 

DISCUSSION  X. 

A  complete  resume  of  the  history  of  the  New  Testament 
criticism  during  the  nineteenth  century  is  found  in  Albert 
Schweitzer's  The  Quest  of  the  Historic  Jesus. 

For  a  semi-popular  presentation  of  the  results  of  Biblical 
higher  criticism,  read  articles  on  the  particular  hooks  of  the 
Bible  in  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  also  G.  B.  Gray's  A  Crit- 
ical Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  Arthur  S. 
Peake's  A  Critical  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.    For 


204  GRAMMAR  OF   BELIEF 

the  New  Testament  see  also  Arthur  C.  McGiffert's  Apostolic 
Age,  Adolph  Harnack's  Chronology  of  Ancient  Christian  Lit- 
erature and  Chap.  8  of  Chas.  Gore's  Belief  in  God.  For  a 
popular  presentation  of  the  modern  theory  of  inspiration 
and  a  popular  statement  of  present  conclusions  as  to  the 
composition  of  the  books,  George  Hodges'  How  to  Know  the 
Bible  is  unequaled.  From  the  same  point  of  view  Chapter 
4  of  Lyman  Abbott's  The  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  also 
Chapter  9  of  Richard  L.  Swain's  What  and  where  is  God. 
For  the  psychology  of  inspiration  read  William  James'  Var- 
ieties of  Religious  Experience,  and  Streeter  and  others,  The 
Spirit.  A  detailed  discussion  of  authorship  and  date  of 
Biblical  writings  would  lead  too  far  afield,  and  is  not  rec- 
ommended unless  demanded  by  the  group.  The  best  of 
these  books  for  one  wishing  to  get  a  general  idea  of  the 
subject  of  this  discussion  is  Hodges'. 

DISCUSSION  XI. 

The  outline  follows  the  argument  contained  in  my  essay 
entitled  The  Nicene  Idea  of  God  to  be  found  in  Part  II. 
Another  and  somewhat  variant  discussion  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  contained  in  Chapter  3  of  Illingworth's 
Personality,  Human  and  Divine  and  Chapter  7  of  his  Di- 
vine Immunence.  The  practical  bearings  of  the  doctrine 
are  interestingly  presented  in  Bernard  I.  Bell's  article,  The 
Meaning  of  Mr.  Wells'  New  Religion  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly 
for  November,  1917.  See  also,  essays  1  and  II  of  The  Spirit, 
Streeter  and  others.  A  discussion  of  the  Trinitarian  doc- 
trine from  the  point  of  view  of  theological  authorities  in  the 
past  is  to  be  found  in  Francis  J.  Hall's  The  Being  and  At- 
tributes  of  God.  With  reference  to  Dr.  Hall's  entire  Dog- 
matic Theology  it  should  be  stated  that  the  work  is  of  prime 
importance  as  presenting  a  very  exact  and  scholarly  com- 
pendium of  the  authorities  throughout  the  history  of  Chris- 
tian thought  upon  all  the  doctrines  of  Christian  theology. 
The  book  is  written  from  the  viewiK>int  of  reliance  upon 
authority.  This  method  of  presentation  embodies  what 
woul^  seem  to  be  a  viewi>oint  difficult  to  maintain  at  the 
present  time.  However,  the  book  is  exceedingly  valuable 
as  a  precise  statement  of  the  orthodox  position.  Any  mod- 
ern attempt  to  restate  the  doctrines  of  theology  must  use 


SUGGESTIONS   TO   THE  LEADER  205 

this,  or  some  similar  book,  as  a  sort  of  mariner's  chart 
The  modern  student,  to  be  sure,  while  he  will  probably 
arrive  at  the  same  port  in  the  end,  will  vary  his  course  con- 
siderably from  that  of  the  ancient  writers;  but  it  is  quite 
essential  for  him  that  he  should  be  able  at  every  point  to 
measure  the  extent  of  that  variance,  and  for  this  purpose 
the  work  of  Dr.  Hall  is  quite  essential. 

DISCUSSION  XII. 

As  to  the  authenticity  of  the  documents  see  books  cited 
in  the  note  on  Discussion  X. 

No  two  modern  writers  upon  the  life  of  Jesus  agree  as 
to  details,  and  it  would  be  hopeless  to  expect  that  any  treat- 
ment of  that  life  would  prove  entirely  satisfactory  to  all  per- 
sons to  whom  it  was  addressed.  I  have  endeavored,  how- 
ever, in  this  discussion  to  follow  what  appears  to  me  to  be 
the  main  stream  of  present  historical  conclusions.  The 
supplemen^ry  reading  to  which  reference  is  here  made  will 
differ  in  many  details  from  my  conclusions,  but  will  be  the 
more  valuable  on  account  of  the  variety  of  view  points.  The 
following  are  suggested:  Chapters  15  to  23  of  Percy  Gard- 
ner's Exploratio  Evangelica;  Essay  3  of  the  volume  entitled 
Foundations  by  seven  Oxford  men.  For  Jewish  apocalyptic 
expectations  of  the  Messiah  read  Robert  H.  Charles'  Re- 
ligious Development  Betiveen  the  Old.  and  New  Testaments. 

The  past  thirty  years  have  witnessed  a  complete  change 
in  the  views  of  historians  as  to  the  Jewish  ideas  of  the 
Messiah  and  Jesus'  own  conception  of  his  Messiahship. 
The  rationalistic  school  had  made  out  that  he  regarded  his 
mission  to  be  primarily  ethical  reform,  and  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  which  is  preached,  merely  a  purified  human  society. 
The  so-called  eschatological  school  of  critics  has  shown 
that,  as  he  said,  "My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world",  and 
that  the  apocalyptic  and  eschatological  ideas  of  his  time 
were  his  also ;  and  that  primitive  Christianity  was,  likewise, 
essentially  mystical  and  sacramental. 

With  regard  to  Gardner's  Exploratio  Evangelica,  my  own 
idea  is  that  it  fails  to  give  due  importance  to  these  elements 
and  represents  the  old,  superseded,  rationalistic  point  of 
view.    A  presentation  of  the  thorough-going  eschatological 


206  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

interpretation  of  Jesus'  life  is  to  be  found  in  chapter  19  of 
Albert  Schweitzer's  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus.  Schweit- 
zer probably  went  too  far.  A  moderate,  and  probably,  in 
the  main,  correct,  interpretation  is  that  contained  in  parts 
I  and  II  of  Shailer  Mathews'  The  Messianic  Hope  in  the 
New  Testament,  also  in  George  Tyrell's  Christianity  at  the 
Crossroads  and  in  Alfred  Loisy's  The  Gospel  and  the  Church. 

DISCUSSION  XIII. 

Here  again  the  possibilities  of  interpretation  are  myriad- 
A  popular  presentation  very  much  in  line  with  my  own  is 
contained  in  Chapter  4  of  Richard  L.  Swain's  What  and 
Where  is  God;  also  Chapter  5  of  Lyman  Abbott's  The  Theol- 
ogy of  an  Evolutionist.  A  more  detailed  study  of  the  devel- 
opment of  Christology  will  be  found  in  essays  4  and  5  of 
Foundations;  Chapter  32  of  Percy  Gardner's  Exploratio 
Evangelica;  Part  III  of  Shailer  Mathew's  Messianic  Hope. 
For  a  conservative  reconsideration  of  the  problem  see  Will 
Spens'  Belief  and  Practice,  Chaps.  6  to  8. 

The  sinlessness  of  Jesus,  referred  to  in  section  four  of 
the  Discussion,  is  evidenced  not  so  much  by  the  fact  that 
no  sinful  act  is  reported  of  him  as  by  his  own  complete  lack 
of  consciousness  of  guilt  or  of  the  need  for  contrition.  He 
was  self-assured  of  perfect  harmony  with  the  will  of  God, 
and,  the  justice  of  this  assurance  his  followers  never  ques- 
tioned. Upon  his  trial  no  charge  was  placed  against  him, 
except  that  he  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah.  It  was  for  this 
reason  that  he  assumed,  and  was  accorded,  the  right  to 
proclaim  God's  will.    **He  taught  them  as  having  authority." 

DISCUSSION  XIV 

A  good  popular  statement  of  the  factors  in  human  con- 
duct is  contained  in  Edwin  G.  Conklin's  Heredity  and  En- 
vironment in  the  Development  of  Men.  His  recent  book  en- 
titled Direction  of  Human  Evolution  is  also  valuable. 

Upon  the  hereditary  and  environmental  causes  of  mis- 
conduct, read  Charles  R.  Henderson's  The  Cause  and  Cure 
of  Crime,  and  B.  G.  Lewis'  The  Offender.  The  application 
of  the  teachings  of  Christ  to  the  problem  of  crime  is  dis- 
cussed in  Hugh  E.  "Wiillis'  The  Law  of  Social  Justice. 


SUQQE8TI0NS   TO   THE  LEADER  207 

DISCUSSION  XV 

The  fact  of  latonement,  or  the  realization  of  the  need  of 
atonement,  as  a  religious  experience  is  fundamental  and 
practically  universal.  It  is  only  when  we  attempt  to  ration- 
alize this  experience  and  explain  just  how  the  life  and 
death  of  Ciirist  operated  to  produce  atonement  that  we 
find  differences  in  theory.  The  Discussion  presents  one  or 
two  aspects  of  the  theory  of  atonement,  and  other  aspects 
will  be  found  in  the  following  citations  :  Essay  6  of  Founda- 
tions. Chapter  31  of  Percy  Gardner's  Exploratio  Evan- 
gelica.  Chapters  7  and  8  of  Lyman  Abbott's  The  Theology 
Of  an  Evolutionist.  Lectures  5  and  6  of  Josiah  Royce's 
The  Pro'blem  of  Christianity.  Essay,  Qod  and  the  World's 
Pain,  in  volume  entitled  Concerning  Prayer    (Macmillan), 

DISCUSSION  XVI 

A  scholarly  discussion  of  the  subject  of  this  discussion 
and  Indeed  of  all  the  underlying  concepts  of  Christian  the- 
ology from  the  point  of  view  of  religious  experience  is  to 
be  found  in  Will  Spens'  Belief  and  Practice.  The  classic 
discussion  of  subconscious  mentality  is  Joseph  Jastrow's 
The  Subconscious.  For  the  general  subject  of  this  Discus- 
sion read  Essays  2  to  8  of  The  Spirit;  William  James'  Va- 
rieties of  Religious  Experience;  Part  II  of  Wright's  Philos- 
ophy of  Religion;  Chapters  15  to  20  of  James  B.  Pratt's  The 
Religious  Consciousness;  Worcester,  McComb,  and  Coriat, 
Religion  and  Medicine;  C.  M.  Addison's  The  Theory  and 
Practice  of  Mysticism;  see  also  Concerning  Prayer  (Mac- 
millan), especially  the  essays  entitled  Prayer  and  the  Mys- 
tic Vision  and  Prayer  and  Bodily  Health.  The  life  of  a 
modern  mystic  is  told  in  The  Message  of  Sadhu  Sundar 
Singh  by  B.  H.  Streeter.  For  one  desiring  to  make  a  more 
thorough  study  of  mysticism  the  standard  work  is  Evelyn 
Underhill's  Mysticism. 

DISCUSSION  XVII 

Chapter  16  of  Percy  Gardner's  Exploratio  Evangelica.  A 
collection  of  essays  entitled  Property  by  a  group  of  English 
theologians. 

On  the  social  ethics  of  Christianity  see  Shailer  Mathews' 
The  Church  and   the   Changing   Order;  Walter   Rauschen- 


208  GRAMMAR  OF  BELIEF 

busch's  Christianity  and  the  Social  Crisis,  Christianizing 
the  Social  Order;  and  The  Social  Principles  of  Jesus;  and 
Charles  K.  Gilbert  and  Charles  N.  Lathrop's  The  Social  Op- 
portunity of  the  Churchman. 

DISCUSSION  XVIII. 

The  Philosophy  of  Loyalty  and  The  Problem  of  Chris- 
tianity by  Josiah  Royce  and  Chapters  1  and  4  of  James 
B.  Pratt's  The  Religious  Consciousness  lay  the  foundation 
for  the  conception  of  the  Church  as  an  essential  element  in 
the  religious  life  and  a  spiritual  organism.  An  excellent 
shorter  treatment  is  to  be  found  in  Essay  7  of  Foundations. 
Read  also  Chaps.  12  to  14  of  Will  Spens'  Belief  and  Practice. 
A  remarkably  fine  interpretation  of  the  beginnings  of  the 
Church  is  contained  in  Essay  4  of  The  Spirit.  Upon  this 
point  also  the  entire  third  book  of  Percy  Gardner's  Explor- 
atio  Evangelica  is  in  point,  especially  Chapters  26,  38,  and 
39,  but  there  is  much  there  stated  with  which  one  will  differ. 
But  he  gives  far  too  little  weight  to  the  mystical  and 
sacramental  elements  in  early  Christianity.  Alfred  Loisy's 
The  Oospel  and  the  Church  is  much  more  in  accord  with 
recent  scholarship. 

For  details  as  to  Church  history  and  doctrine  con- 
sult the  articles  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  and  in  Hast- 
ings' Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics.  The  articles  in 
both  of  these  are  exceedingly  valuable,  not  only  for  this  dis- 
cussion, but  for  all  of  those  which  follow.  A  very  remarkable 
evaluation  of  the  Catholic  theory  of  the  Church  is  the  recent 
work  of  W.  G.  Peck  entitled  From  Chaos  to  Catholicism. 
Mr.  Peck  is  a  member  of  a  group  of  Free  Church  ministers 
in  England,  who,  while  convinced  of  the  validity  of  the 
Catholic  or  organic  idea,  have  remained  in  their  respective 
Churches  and  are  working  from  that  point  toward  the  re- 
union of  Christendom.  Admirable  from  the  same  point  of 
view  is  the  chapter  entitled  The  Historic  Approach  in  Ap- 
proaches Towards  Church  Unity  edited  by  Newman  Smyth 
and  Williston  Walker  (Yale  Univ.  Press,  1919). 

DISCUSSION  XIX. 

Upon  the  theory  of  sacraments  read  Charles  Gore's  The 
Body  of  Christ.     The  first  part  of  this  book  is  especially 


SUGGESTIONS  TO  THE  LEADER  209 

valuable.  The  latter  portion  of  the  book  seems  to  me  to 
go  too  much  into  detail  in  support  of  particular  theories 
on  the  nature  and  operation  of  the  Eucharist.  See  also 
Will  Spens'  Belief  and  Practice,  Chaps.  9  to  11.  Upon  the 
psychological  aspects  of  sacraments  read  Chapters  12  to  14 
in  James  B.  Pratt's  The  Religious  Consciousness  and  Essay 
7  of  The  Spirit;  also  essays  8  and  9  of  Concerning  Prayer 
(Macmillan),  being  essays  entitled  Worship  and  The  Eu- 
charist. Upon  the  origin  and  early  history  of  the 
sacraments  and  their  relation  to  the  Greek  mystery  relig- 
ions, read  Chapters  26,  35,  and  36  of  Percy  Gardner's  Ex- 
ploratio  Evangelica.  Upon  the  whole  subject  of  the  early 
development  of  Church,  Sacraments,  and  Ministry,  a  useful 
popular  treatment  is  James  H.  Ropes'  The  Apostolic  Age, 
and  somewhat  more  extended  treatment  in  Arthur  C.  Mc- 
Giffert's  The  Apostolic  Age. 

DISCUSSION  XX. 

The  concept  of  priesthood  is  discussed  in  the  articles 
under  that  heading  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  and 
Hastings'  Encyclopedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics.  The  histor- 
ical origins  of  the  Christian  ministry  are  discussed  in  J.  B. 
Lightfoot's  Dissertations  on  the  Apostolic  Age  and  also  in 
Foundations.  An  interesting  discussion  of  the  subjects  con- 
tained in  Discussions  XVIII,  XIX,  and  XX  is  scattered 
through  the  volume  entitled  The  Holy  Eucharist  by  P.  N. 
Waggett. 

DISCUSSION  XXI. 

A  very  good  compilation  of  doctrinal  history  is  George 
P.  Fisher's  History  of  Christian  Doctrine.  Less  detailed, 
although  more  valuable  in  bringing  out  the  thread  of  de- 
velopment, is  Alexander  V.  G.  Allen's  The  Continuity  of 
Christian  Thought,  although  colored  overmuch  with  the 
author's  preconceptions.  The  value  of  authority  is  stated 
in  Essay  8  of  Foundations.  The  whole  principle  of  author- 
ity and  development  in  matters  of  doctrine  is  discussed  by 
Dean  Inge  in  Faith  and  its  Psychology.  The  point  of  view 
of  the  traditional  Roman  Catholic  theologians  is  stated 
by  John  Henry  Newman's  Development  of  Doctrine,  and  the 
point  of  view  of  the  modernists  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 


210  GRAMMAR    OF   BELIEF 

is  set  forth  in  The  Progrmnme  of  Modernism  by  certain 
anonymous  Italians  and  in  Alfred  Loisy's  The  Gospel  in 
the  Church.  The  point  of  view  of  the  latter  seems  to  me 
to  be  particularly  sound.  As  to  the  development  of  doctrine 
by  Paul,  read  Part  III  of  Shailer  Mathew's  Messianic  Hope 
in  the  New  Testament,  where  the  writer  brings  out  the 
essential  continuity  in  thought  between  Jesus  and  Paul 
(which  has  often  been  denied).  Mathews,  however, 
does  very  tardy  justice  to  the  corporate  and  organic  nature 
of  the  primitive  Church  (pp.  269-273)  and  entirely  overlooks 
the  sacramental   element,   which   was   all-important. 

DISCUSSION  XXII. 

Approaches  toivards  Church  Unity,  edited  by  Newman 
Smyth  and  WUliston  Walker;  also  The  Proceedings  of  the 
Lamheth  Conference  of  1920.  Also  the  literature  circulated 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  World  Conference  on  Faith  and 
Order ;  also  the  report  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Reunion 
appointed  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  Free 
Churches   of   England. 

A   BOOK   LIST 

Reference  has  been  made  in  the  preceding  notes  to  a 
number  of  valuable  books  to  be  used  in  connection  with  the 
several  discussions.  These  notes  do  not  purport  to  offer 
a  complete  bibliography,  and  only  those  books  are  suggested 
from  which  ideas  have  been  gained  that  find  a  place  in 
the  text.  For  general  purposes,  indeed,  the  number  may 
be  still  further  reduced.  For  the  purpose  of  presenting 
what  is,  perhaps,  a  minimum  selection,  chosen  with  reference 
to  readability,  I  venture  to  propose  the  following  twelve- 
inch  book  list: 

Karl   Pearson,    The    Grammar   of   Science    (first   eight 

chapters). 
William  James,  The  Will  to  Believe. 

William  Kelly  Wright,     A  Studenfs  Philosophy  of  Chris- 
tianity. 
John  Fiske,  The  Idea  of  God. 
William  James,  Human  Immortality. 


SUGGESTIONS    TO    THE  LEADER  211 

Lyman  Abbott,  The  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist. 
George  Hodges,  How  to  Know  the  Bihle. 
Alfred  Loisy,  The  Gospel  and  the  Church. 
B.  H.  Streeter  and  others,  Foundations. 
B.  H.  Streeter  and  others,  The  Spirit. 


ilJs^KSt 


Pnnceton 


n7,^l?',;,^;S™inarySpeerL,brary 


1    1012  01016  1 


893 


'■     '»*.\ 


<   %'9 


H 


't\' 

V 


'^K 


'  t.' 


